There is an on going debate whether punishing criminals is a better option over prevention programs or not. While I believe that preventing practices can have more effects since it is more cost saving and makes people less vulnerable to more serious crimes that they get to know in prisons, in some cases jails is a better solution as they can protect individuals from dangerous offenders.
On the one hand, one main drawback of sending people to prison especially young ones is that this can provide the chance for them to know other serious crimes and criminals. In other words, knowing other kinds of offensive acts makes these harmful acts more common between prisoners. For example, when a shoplifter is sent to prison, he or she might become cell mate with a murderer or rapist which familiarizes minor thieves with serious offences and that increases the rate of violent crimes. Furthermore, prevention measures can reduce government spending. Prisoners’ basic living expenses are covered through taxes paid by people. So, instead of improving infrastructures in different sectors which causes economic growth in long-term, the budget is used for offenders.
However, some argue that criminals should be put behind bars since this makes them acknowledge that they can’t simply get away with a crime if they do it. This makes people more aware of the actions they do. It’s a valid statement, but I think sentencing to jail is a good option for criminals who commit serious and violent crimes such as murdering and those who have psychological problems, because even with preventing practices, we can’t force them to comply with regulations. Thus, jails is the best way to protect people and pave the way toward a safe society.
In conclusion, while locking up offenders who commit serious crimes or are psychopaths can boost safety rate in nations, I think for minor criminals, jail can have adverse impacts like normalizing major criminal acts. Also, deterring people from violent acts reduces government spending.