Issuing practical sentences has always been a major concern in the legal system. While some individuals believe that criminals should be sentenced to imprisonment, others support rehabilitation programs. In my opinion, the former approach is more effective.
To begin with, some people hold the opinion that perpetrators should be brought to justice through imprisonment, as it has better outcomes. They believe offenders will only become remorseful of their criminal acts if they serve a heavy sentence at jail for a extended period of time. As a result, they will return to societies with positive intentions afterwards, and they would be more prone to avoid reoffending.
On the other hand, lenient individuals think that providing the criminals with the educational contents would reter them from reoffending. Receiving a light verdict, such as a rehabilitation program could encourage offenders to embrace the law more efficiently compared to when they are sentenced to heavy retributions. For instance, a father would accept his violations if he understands the negative impact of rising crime rates on children.
From my perspective, a rehabilitation program alone would not discourage offenders from further offences, and they should be applied in the judicial system merely as a complementary means. Although this method could be practical for petty crimes, it is necessary to rule heavy verdicts, such as life imprisonment, for more serious offences, including murder and theft, since punishments should be deterrent enough to curb crime rates.
In conclusion, despite its positive outcomes, training and education cannot practically decrease violations, particularly serious ones. Sending offenders to prison will more effectively reter criminals from future crimes.