For some people, including myself, each crime should have its own fixed punishment form. However, some others believe that before deciding the punishment, things such as circumstances and motivation should absolutely be considered.
The first group of people strongly believes that crimes should have set punishments because it is simply just fair to everyone, including the criminal and the person suffering the consequences of the crime. To give an example to that, the victim is rarely sattisfied with the judgement, because according to them it is not fair. However, this way everyone has a clear idea of what the punishment is going to be, so there are no complains whatsoever. Furthemore, judges would be more resticted to follow the law, resulting into lower chances of corruption and the criminal getting what they deserve. I personally agree with this point of view because it clearly indicates to everyone that crimes are not to be taken lightly.
The second group of people have a more liberal approach. They state that the punishment must vary depending on the circumstances and the motive behind the crime. For instance, if a driver was drunk last night and he hit a person, that is not what he really intended to do, so his punishment should not be the same as someone who killed on purpose. Some people really believe this way is more just, but I personally strongly disagree with this, as it incourages crime when it should be doing the opposite.
Taking everythng into consideration, there are diffetrent views on how a crime should be treated. Many people believe the punishment should be fixed, while others say it may depend on the circumstances and the motive behind the crime. Nevertheless, I believe we should take crimes more seriously by making the punishment fixed.
