A group of people think that the penalty for each kind of crime needs to equal, another group says that before giving punishment wants to analyse the stimulantt and motivation of the crime. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

A group of people think that the penalty for each kind of crime needs to equal, another group says that before giving punishment wants to analyse the stimulation and motivation of the crime. To form a judicious opinion a discussion is essential, where I stand with the second group. On the one hand, punishing all faults at the same level without investigating has a few drawbacks. To explain, crimes are increasing at an alarming rate due to unemployment, poverty, and overpopulation. People to fulfil fundamental needs involve in theft and during the violence to protect themselves attack another person, for these minor violations, providing penalty the same as a punishment given for who committed murder is not a reasonable judgment. Thus, it is clear fixed penalize has disadvantages. On the other hand, giving retribution according to the severity and motivation, protect the people who are innocent and honest. To elaborate, people perform offence in any situation like for money, to protect themselves, subjective vengeance etcetera, but all these reasons giving fixed trail affect society. For instance, giving the same punishment for robbery and murder like death is not convincing. Moreover, the judge wants to evaluate the motivation of felony to prevent penalizing a blameless person. This, it is evident providing penalty according to the harshness and the background of the offence is beneficial for the country To conclude, after a discussion I think judgment needs to give the base on provocation and cause of illegal activity. So, I support the second party.