Some people argue that there should be a common punishment for committing a certain crime for all criminals who carry it out. On the other hand, others suggest that the conditions under which criminal commits a crime should be taken into consideration before deciding the punishment. How far do you agree or disagree with the arguments presented?

Crime and punishment has been a raging debate since the early days of mankind and to easily resolve the issue would be to attempt a difficult task. The idea that there should be a common and fixed punishment for a crime for all criminals who carry it out may seem reasonable but I opine against it.

All criminals who commit a certain crime have very different backgrounds, reasons and methodologies. It is impossible that the extent of cruelty inflicted on the victim is one and instance is exactly the same as in another. The history has to be taken into account at all times to be able to decide the quantum of punishment. In the absence of this, severe injustice may be done to some criminals while others may be let off go lightly.

Next, is there ever a possibility of deciding the certainty of a crime, in the first place? For example, are all numbers or all murderers or all robberies equal? When we cannot come to decide the fixed definition of a murder, a robbery and so on, how is it possible to come to a punishment suitable for all instances of the same?

On the other hand, giving a fixed, common punishment for a crime to all the criminals who are found guilty of it could be useful in reducing the judicial hours spent on a case hearing. Also, when the punishment is not same for all, it gives a lot of room to the lawyers to get reduced sentence for their client. So, when this possibility does not exist, such malpractice shall cease to exist as well.

In the conclusion, I opine that the fixed, common punishment for a certain crime looks simpler in practice, we should not implement it at all in view of the reasons given above.