Some people believe that there should b fixed punishments for each type of crome. 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 punishment.

In today's world, crime and punishment(s) associated to these crime is a controversial issue. Many believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime while others believe that factors such as circumstances and motivation should be accounted when deciding on the punishment. Firstly, by having fixed punishments has its own advantages. By having knowledge of punishment in advance would discourage many people to commit these crimes, hence, resulting in reducing crime rates. In addition, law and order system would be simplified. Processing times of court trials and cases would be reduced dramatically since there are pre-defined punishments. However, it is obvious that people who commit crimes due to certain circumstances and motivation cannot be treated in similar manner to criminals; such as, a murder committed as an act of self-defense is not same as a murder committed in order to terrorise people. Similarly, a father robbing a shop to save her daughter life at hospital is definitely not same as a professional thief robbing a bank. Also, law and order system can be deemed fairer in this arrangement as it takes circumstances and motivation into the account. Finally, in either way there are pros and cons associated to it. In my view, by having fixed punishments would help to reduce crime, however, crime conducted due to certain circumstances and motivation should also be considered while deciding on punishment such as act of self-defense.