Some people believe that there would be fixed punishment for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always take into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

For a long time, the question of how criminals should be punished is a controversial issue. Some people believe that any crimes should have special punishment and under no circumstances should we alter them while many people hold contrasting idea. I will discuss both sides of the argument and give my opinion. On the one hand, some claim that if each crime had a fixed punishment and criminals were aware of them, the rate of crime would decrease since this strategy could be used as a deterrent for many. In other words, if people know each crime carries a specific sentence they are less likely to commit a crime, which leads to social stability and security, people witness fewer illegal activities in the society and everyone can live in safe. However, is it the only way we can prevent society in front of any probable corruptions? On the other hand, many people argue that we have lots of choices to our society in secure and defining fixed punishment is not a decent idea as many people commit a crime unintentional and they actually do not want do this. For instance, it is unfair that someone who kill a person in an accident face the same sentence with a killer killing people deliberately. Hence, they assert that we have to investigate circumstances in which crimes are committed and then deliver appropriate penalties which fit the crime. In conclusion, I believe we have to consider all sides of circumstances and then decide how we would impose punishment.