Some people think all lawbreakers should be put into prison. Others believe that there are better alternatives. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Some people believe that there are better methods to deal with lawbreakers, while others think all lawbreakers should be put into prison. In my point of view, both of them are one-sided, since punishments used by many countries in the world today are indeed varied, including but not limited to: imprisonment, fines, custodial training, etc.
Traditionally, when a person commits crimes either intended or unintended, he or she will be detained administratively or criminally in prison, waiting for a local or senior court to decide the final penalty. That final decision could be long days in prison, a certain amount of forfeitures, sometimes even the death penalty. Since ancient times, rulers have found these ways useful, not only causing the lawbreaker material and spiritual losses but also making compensations for the victims, while achieving the goal of warning the common people.
However, opposing critics still find the punishments “insufficient”, which merely cause superficial wastage while not being enough to purify the whole society. Thus, alternative penalties have been implemented, when courts make their decisions, they consider more about how to maximize the educational effect instead of making punishments a mere formality. In western countries, some courts even invite priests to educate the guilty.
I think apart from imprisonment and custodial training, it is worthwhile for governments to consider novel ways to punish lawbreakers, for example, writing remorse letters, free laboring for compensation, and so on. Perhaps the current judicial system simply put too much attention on following routine procedures, while ignoring the true needs of our victims. In the future, the main court can try inviting the victims to take part in the ruling procedure, and make punishments more effective and coping with the popular conviction.