Over the last few decades, it has become a subject of concern whether each crime should have its own punishment or that giving a penalty must be done by analyzing all sides of crime and motives of commitment. From my standpoint, although fixed punishments could keep the balance among society and, allow people about consequences that their deeds would entail, judges should take into account conditions under which culprit broke a law as it is a good way to enact a justice.
On the one hand, it would seem fair to have only one type of punishment for a particular type of crime. The main reason is that by implementing such a system, we can guarantee that everyone will get the same penalty regardless of their social status, power, and authority. As a result, bypasses that potentially would be taken by authorities could be closed, and there will be equality within the population.
In addition, it helps to warn people about penalties. Consequently, individuals will know that to what repercussions their action would lead. It could also cater to reducing the number of crimes.
On the other hand, I believe that it is indispensable to enact justice in the country. Punishing all guilties in the same way is a main obstacle to reaching justice. To explain, ignoring other circumstances of crime will lead to misunderstanding and judging with a shallow awareness of the infringement. If we imagine, for example, two people, both of whom intended to theft a pharmacy, but one of them is doing it to get the tablets for his mother, while another one is doind it to make easy money. As a judge, it will be unfair to give the same kind of punishment for both of them as only one of them could be a threat to citizens.
To conclude, despite the fact that punishing culprits in the same way prevents discrimination and improves awareness of civilians, in my opinion, it is impossible to give a fair decision without knowing all circumstances of the situation.