Fixed Punishments for Crime

Topic: 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. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion. Nowadays, many people are debating for whether we should fix punishment for each type of crime or not. And this becomes a very hot issue. There are so many arguments about both these views. Some people believe that fixed punishments for each type of crime will minimize the crime of society .People know what is legal and illegal, so they won't easily commit crime. This can prevent people from crime when they don't recognize this is crime by themselves. What's more, fixed punishments for a certain type of crime will help make the society stable. If someone committed a crime, there's a certain punishment for him. So other people will know the results of this crime and they won't follow him. But as a coin has two sides. There're always some other people who don't agree doing so. They still believe that when decide on the punishment for the crime, we should always take the circumstances of the individual crime, and the motivation for committing it into account. Because different reasons cause the same crime, so the punishments for each crime should not be the same. For example, if someone killed some people just to protect himself from being killed or hurt. He didn't do anything illegal, he should be exempted from punishment .On the opposite way, if someone just killed other people on purpose, he should pay for what he has done. In my opinion, I think when we setting the law we should take other factors into account. As for the exemptions, in some countries the law exempts thiefs stealing food during a period of famine taking into consideration the distress and hunger.