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.
It is generally assumed by some people that each crime should have fixed punishment, while others deem the ulterior motives should be taken into consideration when deciding on what sentence should be executed. Although each perspective can be justified; however, I would argue that the conviction for those perpetrating crime should be judged by the motivation for committing it. This is because it could be different for every person.
Regarding to the first idea, I would reckon than fixed punishment should be given for those who committed serious crime, such as drug dealers, corruption, terrorism, or assassination to high-level state officials like presidents or prime minister, because such crimes have detrimental effects to the public as well as country. In addition, those crimes can be categorised into harsh crime or premeditated murder, which blatantly have vicious motive. Thus, stern action should be taken by government in order to prevent such crimes happens in the future.
However, I firmly believe that in many parts of the world, the crime committed by perpetrators is notably because of economic reasons as they cannot meet their daily needs to survive so that it is triggered them for perpetrating petty crime such as theft, shoplifting, and pickpocket. As such, the circumstances of individual crime must be taken into account no matter what the situation is. For instance, there was a culprit who perpetrated theft and got arrested by police. When this case was handled in court, the culprit declared that he committed crime by perforce so as to meet his family needs.
To sum up, it is clear that each perspective can be justified. It depends on what crime they commit, and what motives of individual who committed crimes. So, the reason to give punishment would be acceptable.
It is generally assumed by some people that each crime should have fixed punishment, while others deem the ulterior motives should be taken into consideration when deciding on what sentence should be executed. Although each perspective can be justified; however, I would argue that the conviction for those perpetrating crime should be judged by the motivation for committing it. This is because it could be different for every person.
Regarding to the first idea, I would reckon than fixed punishment should be given for those who committed serious crime, such as drug dealers, corruption, terrorism, or assassination to high-level state officials like presidents or prime minister, because such crimes have detrimental effects to the public as well as country. In addition, those crimes can be categorised into harsh crime or premeditated murder, which blatantly have vicious motive. Thus, stern action should be taken by government in order to prevent such crimes happens in the future.
However, I firmly believe that in many parts of the world, the crime committed by perpetrators is notably because of economic reasons as they cannot meet their daily needs to survive so that it is triggered them for perpetrating petty crime such as theft, shoplifting, and pickpocket. As such, the circumstances of individual crime must be taken into account no matter what the situation is. For instance, there was a culprit who perpetrated theft and got arrested by police. When this case was handled in court, the culprit declared that he committed crime by perforce so as to meet his family needs.
To sum up, it is clear that each perspective can be justified. It depends on what crime they commit, and what motives of individual who committed crimes. So, the reason to give punishment would be acceptable.
