There is a debate whether the offenders should have imprisonment or there are other ways to tackle with petty crimes. Although first-time offenders may not be conscious of what they opt to and should do societal works, I believe that heinous crime merit a harsh sentence.
On the one hand, some offenders may not take into account of what they have actually committed due to unawareness. This is because the subject of law is commonly taught in the high school, so teenagers may not consider whether it is illegal or not. As a result, some petty crimes might happen out of the question due to the lack of consciousness, so they should be given a light sentence. For example, a payment of fine or doing community services cannot take a toll on the future of teenagers, conversely assist in flourishing of the city after these kinds of works. However, youngsters are not children and are capable to make mature decisions, so even the commitment of minor crimes may result in consequential downsides.
On the other hand, some criminals who commit heinous crimes should have a life imprisonment due to detrimental actions. It means that they do not just opt to illegal operations such as burglaries, robberies or harassments, they can influence in someone’s lifetime. Consequently, innocent citizens that have numerous dreams and purposes may be threatened due to criminal’s decision. For instance, a young, prominent and gifted figure skater, who had won a gold medal in Olympics, was killed by a stranger while he was having lunch. Therefore, a harsh sentence as life in prison would be appropriate for these kinds of crimes, since no one has to die because of uncontrollable actions.
In conclusion, while others may think that minor crimes merit alternative punishments than harsh penalties such as prisoning, I am certainly favour of the statement that offenders should have life in prison due to innocent victims.