In order to restrict ever increasing crime rate a class of people ponder that their has to be predefined punishment based on nature of crime whereas other opine that circumstances of crime should be taken into account while deciding the punishment .Both views are discussed below before reaching to valid conclusion .

Fixing the punishment by looking just at type of crime, makes the decision making process very quick. As without wasting much time on investigating the situation of crime, it is actually the type of crime which decides punishment. Furthermore, by regularizing punishment fear of law is inculcated among all categories of criminals that is small or brutal ones. For example, Saudi Arab follows the policy of fixed sentencing. The law of country punishes the culprit of stealing an apple same as one stealing a car. As a result of this Saudi Arab always tops the list of countries with low crime rate. In admittedly, the situation in which a crime is committed plays a crucial role in judging the mindset of person committing crime. Thus judgment made after taking into consideration the circumstances often believe to be fair one. contrary to mandatory punishment the idea of flexible punishment help preventing the situation triggered culprits from facing a furious punishment. Above all, it is not judicial of imposing same punishment to juvenile culprit as to adult one. In my opinion, flexible sentencing is more humane and righteous, the circumstances while a felony occurs regulates the occurrence of crime. Thus the sentencing should never be based on type of crime. To conclude, although all criminals are to be treated equal in the eye of law even though the judgment process should be active one (with situation regulating intensity of punishment) rather then passive one (with prefixed set of rules deciding punishment ).