Prompt: Instructions: Some people believe that there should be fixed punishment 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.

The issue of how to punish criminals has long sparked controversy among people. In my view, admittedly, having corresponding punishment for each crime can bring about certain benefits. However, in different situations, minor alterations to the existing punishment system can also be introduced. Ċ On the one hand, indisputably, adopting one punishment of each crime can effectively help in deterring potential criminals from making an offence. If there are laws clearly stating the consequences for violating the law, then these individuals would think twice before they act and thus would be much less likely to commit a crime. Besides, these rules make it much easier for a judge to decide on how to sentence the offender as they can provide clear instructions to the judge during court trials. Ċ However, if the punishment is unchangeable, then it is highly likely that it will also lead to over-punishment, which is why judges should be allowed to make small changes to the final sentences when it is needed. For example, the punishment for first time offenders ought to be smaller than that of repeat offenders. Also, if an individual drives over the speed limit out of an emergency, then it is only appropriate that he should receive a smaller fine than those who simply break the rule for fun. Ċ On a final note, while there should be punishments tailored for different criminal acts, in order to better accommodate different situations, certain changes to the rule should also be allowed to be made. It is only by combining these two factors that our justice system can become more mature and humane.