The topic is some 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 motivation for commiting it, should always be taken into account when deciding on punishment.
Nowadays, crime rate is getting higher day by day. The most of crimes are comitted by people who are just released from court because of the indicating good motivation and proper language. However, the some people think that punishments should be fixed.
In each crime,people, circumstances and the intentions are different. Some crimes are comitted with extreme desire and some of them are comitted without any bad intention. Giving the same punishment to the suspects in the second case becomes injustice. For example, according to the this , a terrorist and a woman who just wanted to protect herself from her bad husband's violence, will take the same punishment because of the attempting the murder. In this point, is this verdict right? I do not agree this idea.
On the other hand, criminals are good at acting than any actor on the world. After committing crime, they can persuade the jury and judge to believe that it was a mistake and it occured without any bad intention. Furthermore, they do this with proper language. In this point, jury and judge remain under the speech of criminal and jusge gives less punishment than ordinary ones. When the punishment finished, criminals go back their business and complete their mission which was not done previous time and this causes heavier casulities.
In conclusion, different suspects should not take same punishment. Justice must be applied in right way and the jury should not be let under effect of criminal. Judgement should be proceed by professional personality experts.
Cheers
