Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishm

Over the last few years, a growing number of people hold a view that there should be a fixed penalty for each crime. Another common belief about punishment is that reason of committing crime and its circumstances must be considered. In this essay, I am going to discuss both sides of this question and give my own view.

First of all, some people claim that fixed punishment is a preventing measure. What is more, they believe that if everyone knows that for each crime there will be a fixed punishment and they cannot escape from its consequences, it may stop them to committing that crime. As a result, by this way the rate of crime would decline gradually.

On the other hand, it is undeniable that circumstance, motivation and other factors should be taken into account. Sometime certain situation and circumstances put some people in the position where they commit crimes and on the other hand, there are some people who are criminal in their nature, thus they are dangerous for society. As a result, these two types are not the same and should not be punished in the same way.

Nonetheless, I believe the second view is more equitable, to support my idea I am giving an example. Consider two persons who both have murdered someone, one of them has murdered while he was driving and it was totally an accident, whereas other person has murdered a guy during a fight and out of anger. Obviously, it would not be justice to blame both with the same punishment.

To sum up, I strongly believe that before condemning someone and before announcing his or her punishment, motivation and the circumstances of crime must be considered.