Some people argue that all offenders should be sentenced to prison – regardless of how serious the crime was- while others believe there is room for alternative punishments.
I completely agree that lawbreakers should be sent to prison because it offers safety and fairness to the public.
On the one hand, opponents of better alternatives claim that social reintegration may be more beneficial. These days, individuals who are incarcerated for less serious crimes often exposed to severe criminals and suffer due to social isolation. In contrast, reintegration and activities like community service, voluntary work and training programmes give offenders opportunity to remain connected with society, as well as gaining useful skills and values. For example, minor criminals may be given time to ennoble the city with new trees, flowers or work on constructional projects. As a results, in the future, it is more likely that person may obtain stable employment and avoid criminal activities.
On the other hand, many people, including me, believe that imprisonment is essential in ensuring public safety and guaranteed justice. Individuals who commit crimes such as murders, have a direct threat to society and must be isolated to prevent future incidents. Incarcerating lawbreakers protects citizens and ensures safety in the city. Moreover, justice demands to accept consequences after actions. Victims and their families often seek for fairness, which only can be achieved when criminals are held in prison. By contrast, without strict punishment, there is a danger that faith may be lost, leading to breaking laws in the future.
In conclusion, some alternatives may be effective for minor crimes, as they receive deep understandings of values,as well as work for the city. However, I believe that incarcerating criminals is a change for the better, for public safety and ensured justice.