Several individuals assume that all criminals ought to receive fixed punishment. I completely disagree with the statement because both the severity and motive of the offence matters a lot in this situation.
To begin with, one of the most important point is that we all know that a person who breaks the law is a criminal. However, it is not the case all the time. Some people go beyond the law to protect their family, money, and any other valuable thing. They do break the rules but they cannot be treated like the ones who do that repeatedly. For example, a person who steals food to feed starving family should not receive the same penalty as compared to those who commits fraud for personal gain. It is clear that both have break the law but the motives and the consequences of their actions are contrast in nature. Therefore, judges ought to consider these factors while judging the cases.
Moreover, factors like age, mental health, and criminal history of lawbreaker should be considered in specific cases. Some people do breach the rules but they are underage, having mental problem, or having no criminal history in the past, should be treated accordingly. Like, underage must be kept in a controlled environment, the one with a health issue have to be admitted in the hospital and first-offender who shows genuine repent should be benefitted than repeat disobeyer.
In conclusion, while equal treatment under the law is essential, I strongy disgree that all criminals must receive the same punishment. The law system should consider the nature and the consequences of the crime in order to give the most suitable sentence to the criminals.