Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each crime

In recent years, the number of crimes being committed climbed up sharply. Therefore, heaps of people are sticking on the opinion that these crimes should be fixed resolutely. Others, on the other hand, amalgamated over the idea of taking into account the nature and severity of these wrongdoings. I personally accept the latter opinion as there are countless misdemeanors where accusers are not actually guilty. Notwithstanding, a group of conservative people think that giving harsh castigations even for the smallest crimes will make people not decide to start any misdeeds. Therefore, it may help to the development of the society. For instance, it is right to cut one hand of the robber no matter what the person stole, a toy or a jewellery, in Saudia. However, on the other hand, another group of people agree with the opinion that it would be better if the Rights Protecting Organizations take into consideration the motivation of the crime. The justification, for this beliefs if that majority of people who are thought to be wrongdoers, actually, are not or did this involuntary. In the latter occasion they should be counted as victims not guilties since they might have to do it as a self-defense. For example, the world known case of Dreyfus, who used to be the captain of French army. He was jailed for ten years, eventhough he was not guilty at all. After ten year period the government of the Republic of France had to acknowledge the fact that Dreyfus was not the spy that they were trying to catch. On the whole, although it would be better for the society if fixed punishments were utilized by the society to punish criminals, however, the system of justice should be enough flexible to take into account the conditions that forced the person to do certain crime while giving a verdict.