People have different views on whether increasing the harshness of punishments for criminals is the most effective approach to reduce crime. While imposing harsher penalties can serve as significant deterrent, I agree with those who believe that alternative approaches, such as minimizing unemployment, offer a more sustainable solution to lowering the crime rate.
On the one hand, implementing severer sanctions on criminals can function as a powerful deterrent against criminal behaviour. Proponents of rising the severity of penalties argue that when criminals are fully aware that offenses – such as murder, burglary or driving without license – could result in way harsher prison sentences, associated with prolonged prison terms , they are less likely to commit such acts. Moreover, this approach promotes the public safety by eliminating dangerous individuals for a longer time, thus preventing them from committing additional offences.
However, opponents argue that dealing with the root of crime through providing them with job opportunities is a more viable long-term strategy for crime prevention than relying solely on custodial sentences. Without a doubt, equipping citizens with gainful employment provides valuable opportunities for lowering the crime rate. If the government grants citizens access to employment, they can earn at least enough to meet their necessities, thereby leaving no need for committing crimes , such as shoplifting, robbery or pickpocketing, and addressing poverty. As a result, this helps to mitigate poverty-driven crimes, which ultimately enhances the overall quality of life.
In conclusion, although making custodial sentences stricter can play a role in reducing crime, I firmly support that alternative strategies like providing people with work opportunities are likely to discourage individuals from reoffending and tackle the root of crime.