Band 5+: 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.

Some individuals argue there should be fixed punishments for criminals, nonetheless, others believe different factors such as circumstances and motivations should take into consideration. Both perspective will be examined below, followed by my personal stance on the matter. On one hand, fixed penalties can be an effective deterrent. In fact, when people are aware of the consequences of their bad behaviors in society, they try to not committing any crime. As an example, in my country, numerous judges sentence the death penalty for people who are serial killer. I do not think it is fair, in that considering only the happening deprives the right of defense from offenders, they may just tried to do self-defense. On the other hand, those who advocate for variable punishments argue that not all crimes are committed under the same circumstances and motivations. As an instance, someone who steals food because of unemployment and poverty in order to meet family responsibility and pay bills is not equal to others breaking laws for their personal benefit and profit. In other words, the former person’s aim was not to disturb the society disciplines. I agree with this argument because the sentence of a repeat offender should be different from one that situation forced them to commit, they may be innocent in some particular situations. In conclusion, even though being aware of the fixed punishments can deter people from committing a crime, I believe variable penalties are fairer because various situations encourage individuals to turn to crime.