Is the fixed punishment approach the solution to crime? Some say "Justice is blind", meaning that all of us should be treated in the same way by the system, and that the same crime should have the same sentence. Nevertheless, I think there are certain sitautions in each crime which must be taken in consideration during the trial and in the final sentence; and that can alleviate or toghten the penalty. It is obvious that not always a crime implies a previous planning by the person commiting it. The legal term man´s slaughter is an example of a crime committed without intention, and for me it is clear that the sentence shoulde be lesser compared to the killing of a person that was planned by the murderer, because in the former case the person who committed the crime had not the intention to do so. On the other hand, I think that for minor offenses the treatment should be the same for both; for the person who hadn´t the intention of breaking the law and for the citizen who did it on purpose and wanted to get away with it. This is bacuse when dealing with minor faults, fixed punishments work as an educational tool for correcting behaviours which are harmful to society. While the fixed punishment is a popular point of view, some of us believe that everyone is different and behaves different in the same situation, therefore this should always be pondered by the jury and the judge. syumming up, the circumstances of a crime, not only the crime, should be considered too.The legal system should take into account if thre was a motivation for the crime or if the assasin planned it. These factors are as relevant as are the existence of extenuations, which make the legal processes so different, even when deal with the death of a human being.