Topic: Some people think a crime should always have a

fixed punishment, like life for murder, whereas others

think you should take the circumstances of crime into
account. What is your viewpoint?
These days, thea number of criminals such as shoplifters,
thieves, pickpockets, etc. is increasing astonishingly. In fact, crime
triggers off (recommend: trigger sth off: cause sth to happen
suddenly) numerous damages to the society. Some people hold
the view that equivalent punishment should be applied for all
kinds of criminals, while others argue that it is indispensible to
decide appropriate chastisement(criticise sb to do sth wrong). In
this essay, I will look at both sides of the argument and give my
opinion.
On the one hand, no matter what kinds of villain, they must
be punished with the same penalty like as the one applied for
massacre. It is a common knowledge that laws are promulgated
and educated extensively for citizens, but some ignore and break
the law deliberately to gain their ends. Therefore, to solve this
problem, strict penalty is obligated to avail for deterring
offenders. By doing this, it contributes to reduceing the number of
criminals.
In contrast, it is integral to classify carefully crime based on
their different cases and motives. There is no doubt that each
offence has their its own circumstances. For instance, it is not fair
to put into practice the penalty of murder for kleptomaniac if we
take their tolls into consideration to the community. Undeserved
punishment not only deprives their chance to of reeducateing
themselves but also affects to their mind, body and the whole
society.
In brief, since criminals are extremely dangerous to peoples
life as well as the social order, they must be penalized for what
they have done. However, I am in favor of giving our careful

regard to criminal circumstances, then select the best sentences

for them.