some suggest that fixed punishment is a strong law to prevent crimes v.1

The world is filled with crimes of different kinds and scenarios. The law has a systematic punishment scheme, according to each offence. Some argue that fixed discipline is recommended as a strong deterrent. I disagree with such opinion and believe that each case has its own circumstances that need investigation and the result will decide what kind of sentence the offender deserve. First of all, not all, violations were committed under the same circumstances. For example, if you are accused of killing felony, the judge and jury need to understand the causes that propel you to commit such misconduct. Many who killed someone because of self-defence which is treated differently from an intentional killing. Although, personal circumstances, such as extreme poverty or mental health should be taken into account. Such as, many shoplifters, although illegal, forced for stealing because of their poor status. Moreover, a person who has never committed a breach should not receive the same trial as a repeat offender with a long prison record. As an example of that, a bank employee with clean criminal records who roped his own bank should not be treated as another person charged with repeated bank robbery. On the other hand, some argue that the fixed discipline law will prevent any corruption within the legal system affecting the punishment given, besides it will prevent criminal slipping through the loopholes in the law. In conclusion, it may well be that the prospect of being caught and punished is more potent deterrent than the prospect of a harsh sentence which in turn each case need to be treated according to its surrounding conditions that cast behind the criminal scene.