One of crucial topics in law is how to decide punishment types for crime. Some people insist that penalty must be fixed for each crime while others believe that the penalty have to be based on motivation of criminal. Although both arguments have logical reason, we should produce a balance rule for them.
The reason why fixed punishment should be settled for each type of illegal action is to avoid ambiguous opinion among the lawyers in court session with regard to what the appropriate penalty for the criminal. If there is no obvious sentence for defendant, the long debate would be happened. Finally, decision of the jury and judge would not satisfy one side in the case. In addition, fixed sentence result in a strong deterring influence for criminals because they understand the effect of illegal activities which they do and those would be condemned by serious punishments. For example, if rule in legislation written a death penalty for corruptors stealing state money more than one million dollars, officials would not corrupt more than that number because their penalty is clear. There is no longer debate in the court.
However, people supporting penalty based on circumstances reveal that motivation is the essential factor why defendants undertake the crime. They have different reason for each illegal action committed. If we give same penalty of a case to all criminals, absolutely it is not justify. To illustrate, the murderers assassinating victims whose money they steal must be sentenced far more severe than those who kill people trying to rob their goods (defending oneself).
To conclude, fixed punishment is good for preventing effect but it would not be fair for defendants who protect themselves from cruel people. A balance rule which can be taken for this case is determining the maximum and minimum sentence for every illegal action.