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. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Fixing punishments for each type of crime has been a debatable issue. There are many arguments supporting both views, those for and those against fixed punishments.
On the one hand, fixed punishments will have a deterring effect on society. Individuals knowing that they will be subject to a certain punishment if they are convicted with a given crime, will reconsider committing this act in the first place. This deterring effect also leads to social stability and security, through minimizing the number of crime committed. If people knew they would be able to convince the court or the jury of a reason for having committed the crime they are accused of, penal decisions would be largely arbitrary. This would result into criminals getting away with their crimes and into a high level of injustice caused by the subjective approach of different courts.
On the other hand, taking the circumstances of a crime and its motivation into consideration is a prerequisite for establishing and ensuring justice and equity. A person killing in self-defense cannot be compared to a serial killer, moving from one victim to the next.