Some people argue whether criminals must always subject to fixed punishment for certain crimes, or whether situations for committing the crime should be taken into account before inflicting punishment. This essay will examine both sides of the argument and outline my opinion.
On the one hand, criminal activities have reduced significantly over the centuries in the history of humankind. Fixed punishments like the death penalty, life imprisonment for drug trafficking deter an offender from such heinous crimes. The ruthlessness of such harsh punishments ensured safety and security in the society. For instance, according to a publication on criminal justice from the C. I. A, Saudi Arabia has been consistently ranked top regarding achieving a low-crime index due to its aggressive law for enforcing fixed punishments for designated crimes. Nevertheless, the main objective of the law and order is to protect the innocents and punish the wrong doers. The fixed punishment often contradicts with the fundamental objective of the civil society.
On the other hand, persecuting a convict violate human rights; often without considering the aspects leading to such crime. Consider Saudi Arabia, ranked as the country with the lowest crime index in the world. The state’s implementation of a strict fundamentalist approach to persecute criminals regardless the circumstances of the crime has drawn flak from many human rights organisations. Amnesty International reported that fair trials are prohibited to criminals even if they are wrongly convicted.
Finally, in my opinion, a convicted person should be given punishment only based on the circumstances and severity of the crime. For example, if someone murders in the act of self-defense, the verdict given should not amount to life-sentence.
To conclude, inflicting fixed punishments may increase the safety and security of the society; however, it also violates the human rights a suspect is legally entitled to. 
 Some
  people
 argue whether  
criminals
  must
 always subject to  
fixed
  punishment
 for certain  
crimes
, or whether situations for committing the  
crime
 should  
be taken
 into account  
before
 inflicting  
punishment
. This essay will examine both sides of the argument and outline my opinion.
On the one hand,  
criminal
 activities have  
reduced
  significantly
 over the centuries in the history of humankind.  
Fixed
  punishments
 like the death penalty, life imprisonment for drug trafficking deter an offender from such heinous  
crimes
. The ruthlessness of such harsh  
punishments
 ensured safety and security in the society.  
For instance
, according to a publication on  
criminal
 justice from the C. I. A, Saudi Arabia has been  
consistently
 ranked top regarding achieving a low-crime index due to its aggressive law for enforcing  
fixed
  punishments
 for designated  
crimes
.  
Nevertheless
, the main objective of the law and order is to protect the innocents and punish the  
wrong
 doers. The  
fixed
  punishment
  often
 contradicts with the fundamental objective of the civil society. 
On the other hand
, persecuting a convict violate human rights;  
often
 without considering the aspects leading to such  
crime
. Consider Saudi Arabia, ranked as the country with the lowest  
crime
 index in the world. The state’s implementation of a strict fundamentalist approach to persecute  
criminals
 regardless the circumstances of the  
crime
 has drawn flak from  
many
 human rights  
organisations
. Amnesty International reported that  
fair
 trials  
are prohibited
 to  
criminals
 even if they are  
wrongly
 convicted. 
Finally
, in my opinion, a convicted person should be  
given
  punishment
  only
 based on the circumstances and severity of the  
crime
.  
For example
, if someone murders in the act of self-defense, the verdict  
given
 should not amount to life-sentence. 
To conclude
, inflicting  
fixed
  punishments
 may increase the safety and security of the society;  
however
, it  
also
 violates the human rights a suspect is  
legally
 entitled to.