Criminals should be judged according to their personal circumstances rather than making them receive a fixed punishment. Do you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that criminals’ punishment should be based on their actual situations rather than using a fixed criterion to judge them. Personally, I strongly support this suggestion as people commit crimes for various reasons, and this should be factored in the process of judging them. Giving a fixed punishment is not effective in educating criminals. Specifically, as the ultimate purpose of punishing criminals is to educate them into better individuals for society, giving the right punishment is of paramount importance. As a result, judges must factor in multiple different variables that led to the crimes before giving the most appropriate education in the form of punishment, making each sentence very personalized and flexible. Consequently, giving a fixed penalty would not achieve this ultimate purpose and should not be applied. When criminals are judged based on their personal circumstances, fairness could be achieved. For criminals who deliberately commit crimes for personal gain, harsh punishment may be vital in helping them come to a realization of their faults. Nevertheless, a softer sentence with mental counseling would be enough for those who commit crimes as their last resort. Furthermore, for some criminals, especially ones with antisocial disorders, who may be unfit to stand trial, treating their illnesses rather than giving jail time is more appropriate. To conclude, giving criminals the most appropriate punishment has always been a debatable topic. Some people endorse that judges should consider criminals’ personal conditions to formulate the penalty. Personally, I strongly agree because this method is the only way to maximize the chance of successfully bettering criminals and avoiding unfair punishment.