Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should be always taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Today's hot issue comes to policy-makers' consideration in punishing criminals. Some argue making penalty should be fixed and indiscriminate. However, others are more likely to against this notion because they believe criminal actions depend on their motivation and consideration; therefore, these factors need to be considered before inflicting punishment to criminals. In my perspective, while the former statement makes sense, the latter one sounds as reasonable as does the first.
Fixed penalty for criminal can help to identify clearly how guilty persons should be punished. Thus, people consciously understand about their punishment when doing something wrong. Taking Philippines as an example, in the recent year, the government implemented dead penalty for distributors of illegal drugs indiscriminately. As a result, during 6 months, thousands of dealers are dead thanks to this regulation. Therefore, the crime rate, automatically, saw a sharp decrease and people got deterrent effect to be criminal.
However, considering criminal's reason and where they live is also crucial matter. This is because every single person has the presumption of innocence. For instance, a young girl hurt a man because probably she wanted to defense herself and unconsciously hurt him. Another example, an old woman stole meal in food stall because probably she, perforce, did it for her living. In these cases, we cannot judge them as criminals who should suffer heavy punishment.
To sum up, I believe although fixed punishment for criminals is a good idea, finding out their motivation and the fact of crime scene should be also thought before deciding a suitable penalty.(256 words)