Some individuals believe that all criminals must be put in the jail, while others propose the alternatives that offenders who commit to minor violations can be punished by doing things like community service. This essay depicts both sides of this argument and outlines my belief of lenient penalties for minor crimes.
Putting all criminals into a cell can be beneficial. One primary reason is that the incarceration acts as deterrent. The threat of imprisonment is considered to discourage individuals from engaging in illegal activities. For example, in Singapore, potential jail time for littering prompts people to dispose of their garbage responsibly. Furthermore, advocates assert that imprisoning lawbreakers is essential for the safety of the public. Removing individuals who have violated the laws from the society is seen as a means of protecting others from potential harm.
However, adopting alternatives for minor yields positive outcomes. Assigning social services, such as community work, to offenders like shoplifters fosters a sense of responsibility within the community. For instance, Hongkong’s practice of compelling the criminals to pick up litter or assist squatters promotes a constructive contribution to the society. Moreover, such penalties can be financially advantageous, because maintaining the prison system can be exorbitant. Allocating a significant portion of the government budget to confining all criminals may be economically burdensome.
In conclusion, I believe both sides of the argument have merits. However, overall, I think that the advantages of employing lenient penalties for minor offenses, in terms of fostering a sense of responsibility and alleviating financial burdens of the government, outweigh the drawbacks of excessive punishment. Furthermore, in my opinion, judicial system should be developed more so that it can be capable of discerning appropriate judgements and punishment methods to address this complex issue.