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 and give your own opinion.
Punishment is mandatory (necessary) so that people can
comprehend (1) understand that committing a crime is wrong. While one school of thought avers that the state should make (FIX is a verb. There is no need of another verb – MAKE. 2.) fix punishment for every crime, I believe the judiciary (JUDICIARY and STATE are different. This is incorrect.) needs to be considered consider motive and circumstances behind the committed crime. (Why use passive voice. Follow the sentence structure as mentioned in point number 2.)
1. Use of incorrect words may cost you bands in the LR area. Comprehend refers to understanding the MEANING of something. Here, people are not understanding the meaning but IMPACT of committing a crime.
2. The state (subject) should (aux verb) fix (main verb) punishment (object 1) for (preposition linking two objects) every crime (object 2). Using two verbs makes your sentence weird.
Note that in the introduction, you have repeated crime and punishment several times. Also, there are repetitions of the word state. Can we avoid this by creating optimum sentence structures? Let us try.
Punishment is necessary so that people can understand that committing a crime is wrong. While one school of thought proposes that it (use a pronoun to refer back to punishment) should be fixed for every crime, another proposes that motive and circumstances should be taken into consideration. (Note that I’ve eliminated the need to use the word STATE and there are no repetitions of punishment. I have used a pronoun instead. Also, CRIME is repeated only once.)
At the outset, not all
the crimes are committed under the same situations. Many times, circumstances such as extreme poverty or combat for self-defense (3) force a layman person to commit a crime. (4) Now, (Wrong cohesive device. You are concluding the idea here.) Consequently, these people should not be considered (Wrong voice) the same as the hardcore offenders who have pure intentions of crime. For example, a study by investigation bureau has revealed that more than 50 percent of the criminal cases were due to starvation. (The example is incomplete. Should these people be given a fixed punishment or not? – 5.) Furthermore, if a petty criminal gets the same sentence as repeated repeat offenders, the minor sinners will become rebel of the country because they may be badly beaten by cops in jail he (use a pronoun to refer back to “a petty criminal”) may become regular criminals. However, prints from the body will be vanished with time but not from brain. (This sentence is absurd and does not convey any information.) Therefore, after completing their sentence, they must he (your subject is singular) will take revenge from the country.
3. In a “X or Y” construction, X and Y should be parallel. Here, poverty is a noun, while combat is a verb (an action). These are inconsistent. Please read my article on the Rules of Parallelism.
4. Can we alter the sentence structure to prevent the repetition of crime? They (refers to CRIMES in the previous sentence.) are often (= many times) a result of dire circumstances such as extreme poverty and self-defense. (There is no need of writing layman.) Consequently, those who them under compelling cases should not be equated with hardcore, regular offenders.
5. Write an example that covers the complete idea. Your example fails in TR. It does not address the question. For example, a study by the investigation bureau has revealed that more than 50 percent of the criminal cases in India were due to starvation. Since this is a failure of the state which has not eliminated hunger during the last 8 decades, the offenders can not be treated the same as rapists and murderers.
On the other hand, if
the a punishment is objective (6) and (7) does not depend on a judge’s opinion, abundant a large number of (abundant is used to refer to an uncountable noun. Criminals are countable.) criminals disrupt (This word does not make any sense in this context. It, in fact, blurs the meaning of the sentence.) from slipping the loopholes in the law. To illustrate, (This is not an illustration.) many criminals afford the a cunning attorney who can help not only curtails reduce the punishment but also bail their (a plural pronoun can’t refer to a singular noun – a cunning attorney. In fact, there is no need of a pronoun.) clients before the completion of the sentence. Moreover, the cases will be promptly solved by the judiciary because there will be few hearings as punishment has already been fixed. (You need to develop this idea.)
6. How is OBJECTIVE punishment same as FIXED punishment? Check the dictionary meaning of objective. The two words are vastly different.
7. This violates the Rules of Parallelism. Can you guess how?
To conclude, although
, (There is no comma after although. The correct construction is “although X, Y”) fixed punishments have ample benefits (wrong word choice. Check dictionary meaning.) privileges, still (Don’t use still in “although X, Y” construction.) the a person’s criminal records and reason must be checked by the apex authority before announcing the verdict final statement.(“Final Statement” does not convey anything.)