Prompt: 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 always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both these views and give your opinion?

In this modern world crime rates are increasing more than ever. To tackle this issue, several people presume that the punishments should be decided priorly for all types of crimes. On contrary, others believe that the factors leading to the violation should also be considered while making a judgment. In my opinion, I agree with the second statement. Ċ To begin with, those who support the introduction of fixed retribution have several reasons to support their viewpoint. Firstly, this would make the court proceedings a lot quicker as judges would not need to decide on the severity of retribution for criminals. Secondly, as a result of the swift and rigid penalty system, many people would be deterred from engaging in criminal acts in the first place. This would ultimately bring down the felony rate. To illustrate it with an example, Dubai is the most prominent country which has very extreme levels of punishment for the guilty and makes judgment swiftly. Thus, it is considered being advantageous. Ċ Nevertheless, one should not forget that people are living beings and as such, prone to a variety of wrong decisions. Because of this, deciding on crime according to the situation and motive for doing it, makes perfect sense as it would ensure that lawbreaker is given a fair trial and the right retribution is handed down to him. For instance, if a person committed a felony in self-defence, then he would be judged accordingly, instead of being grouped into the same category as all other offenders. Therefore, it is conclusively clear that the conditions of a misdeed should be carefully analyzed to come up with a fair punishment. Ċ In my perception, punishment upon breaching law should be based on the factors that lead to the unlawful action rather than providing judgment based on the classification of crime types. Consequently, there are still chances for it to be misused which has to be given due diligence. In conclusion, both methodologies have few merits and demerits, if properly utilized they could work hand in hand.