The appropriacy of penalties for different offences has long been a matter of heated debate. While some people hold the view that there is an inverse correlation between sentence lengths and crime rates, I would contend that rather than putting longer prison terms into practice, more effective measures can be taken to deter criminal activities.On the one hand, there are justifications for the widely-held view that tougher prison sentences can lead to substantial reductions in the overall levels of crime. First, an increase in the length of prison sentences helps keep the threats out of the community. Moreover, a longer sentence may even decrease reoffending rates, especially when serious repeat offenders are concerned. Second, harsher sentencing may act as a deterrent to would-be offenders by raising their fear of a doomed future. For instance, if a murderer has to serve a whole-life prison sentence, others who are planning to kill someone for property may think twiceabout the repercussions of their actions. On the other hand, although there are valid arguments to the contrary, I am of the opinion that increasing sentence lengths is not the definitive answer to the problem of offending, and there are other resolutions that prove more feasible. First, longer jail sentences place an intolerableburden on the state budget as more money needs to be invested in prison maintenance. Furthermore, a focus on education provides a more permanent solution to offence commission. For instance, exposure to safe and nonviolent methods for resolving problems and confrontations in early childhood education can help prevent crime at later ages. To recapitulate, although increases in sentence lengths have positive effects on crime prevention, it is far from being the most effective measure. Rather, emphasis should be placed upon early education to reduce crime rates.