Have you ever thought about being a judge?

There may be various situations in our daily lives

which our judgments need to express. But, when it comes to evaluating significant crimes, is it truly as
straightforward as the scenarios we experience daily? For a long time, it has been debatable whether
there should be fixed punishments for all types of crimes or whether motivation is a vital component to
consider. I agree with the latter viewpoint since there are many crimes in which the perpetrator is not
truly guilty.
In the one hand, some people think that the punishment for every crime should be the same
regardless of the perpetrator's motivation. They claim that if offenders know they would face harsh
punishment for minor offence, they will be deterred and never commit a crime. As a result, violence
and crime rates drop significantly, resulting in a healthier society. In Saudi Arabia, for example, theft is
punishable by having one of the thief's hands chopped off, regardless of whether the robber took an
apple or a vehicle.
On the other hand, the other group argues that where the felony stems from must be
investigated. The motivation should be taken into consideration when sentencing a criminal. As a
justification, they cite that there are situations in which the crime has not been done deliberately and
the culprit is not the reality wrongdoer. In particular, in an involuntary homicide, the killer might be
the victim since it might have self-defence or a robbery for feeding a family differs from robbing for
profit. In this case, the judge is who can decide the best penalty considering every aspect and condition
of crime perpetration.
On the whole, fixed punishments can be intensely beneficial in the decrease of crime rate and
may culminate in a safer society, the justice system should be flexible enough towards certain felonies
and consider the crime’s rationale and conditions for giving the most appropriate verdict.