Prompt: TOPIC: Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, think that the circumstance of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should be taken into account when making decision on the punishment. Discuss both sides and give your own opinions?

One of the most controversial issues today related to punishments for each type of crime. Some people argue that criminal punishments should be fixed whist many others contend that this should be put into a range. In my opinion, both sides hold water. Ċ On the one hand, convincing argument can be made fixed punishment will have a deterring affect to social crimes. First and foremost, people know how much illegal activities exactly threat to their lives if they break the law. For example, accent Greeks had a law that if you steal anything, you will be cut off hands without any reasons or explanations and this made Greeks society became the cleanest place of the world in its period. Another feasible explanation is that number of re-offend prisoners are reduced when they are released. Ex-prisoners will be aware that fixed punishments have no tolerance for crimes. Ċ On the other hand, the statement above is not generally consisted as an accurate one to everybody since there also some people who do not advocate it. As regards their justification, a reason usually claimed by many of them to convince us is that taking the circumstance of a crime for verdict to ensure the justice and equity. Indeed, we cannot deny that every crime must be paid back, but people attacking in self-defense cannot be compared with robbery. The laws have to provide a range for punishment framework and also have certain cases of exemption. Ċ To sum up, while both approaches have benefits and drawbacks in our ever-changing world, I would concede that a range for punishment is necessary. It was also applied in most countries of the modern world today.