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

Article 1

Punishments may decrease a crime but they can never end it. In the present era with inflation at its peak there is an ever increasing crime rate and to limit it we see new laws being tried now and then. Some people think fixed punishments for each crime is a better option still others think that circumstances should always be considered. 

Assigning a fixed punishment for a crime could create fear among the people for that crime and could decrease it but in my opinion although fixed punishments should be there but the whole scenerio and the motivation behind that crime can never be overlooked. No doubt crime is a crime no matter what made you do it and one should be punished for committing it but the severity of punishment should be decided on individual basis. 

For example killing someone is the biggest crime one could imagine but to do that in self defence changes the scenerio all together. So the best option is to define a punishment for breaking a law or committing a crime so that everyone would know what they are gonna face if they are caught but then a trial should be carried out in court so that justice could be provided to citizens as much as possible and no one would be over or under punished. 

Lastly punishments are not a solution to decrease crime rate we have to correct the root cause that is forcing the people to commit crime whether it be poverty, negligence of parents, bad company, inflation, media, lack of education or any other. To get a good fruit one has to sow good seeds.

Article 2

Governments created laws and seated punishments for individuals who break it , Even in the early ages of human life people tended to punish the crimanls . But does punishments will stop the occurance of crimes or help at least to decrease it rates ? 

First of all before punishing peaople we should look beyond the crime , what circumstances associated with , the mental status of the criminals and the motivation behind it , after analysing each factor we can set a punishment accoridgnly , So in case of self defense murder , or stealing because of poverty ,less punishments should be considered . Serving community service hours is a very effective and productive way in punishing people who commited a minor crimes , in this way both the individual and the community will benefit . 

Jail could be an excellent option for serious criminals , where they can be rehabilitated . Omer ibn al khatab was one of early islamic leaders during his years of leading had been asked , what the punishment for the needy people who would steal , he replied he would punish the person wo was the reson of there poverty , omer gave us a very nice example in considering crime cricumstances .but in the other hand some people think that fixed Punishments would be a better punishment because indiviulas will fear and think thousand times before commiting a crime , and also will not give criminals chance to manipulate the government by sitting fake situations and reasons for crimes . 

In conclusion corection of the situation that may lead to the crime and helping out the indiviuals is more important than punishing them .