In many situations, people who break the law should be warned instead of punished. To what extent do you agree or disagree

Many today claim that majority should make cautions with the lawbreakers rather than sanctions.

Although

it presents a humane way to manage the citizens, it cannot justify neglecting social safety.

Therefore

I cannot wholly agree with

this

notion. Loosen the bonds of discipline in administering the offender seems to be a sympathetic method with people who break the law. Specifically, civilians who violate should be given another chance to modify their lifestyle and re-educate for a better life

instead

of any sentences. Recent research supports that people who can fix their mistakes are more usual to alter their evil intentions.

Nevertheless

, a leading cause to deny

this

is social security.

For instance

, if the convicts escape punishment successfully, no one can affirm that they will not harm the citizens around, threaten them and get away far-off.

This

directly suggests that lawbreakers should be appropriately punished to remains discipline and social order.

In other words

, after being excused, lawbreakers can disregard the laws and repeat the mistakes once again, which directly affects civilian safety. To recapitulate, despite presenting a humane way of assisting the lawbreaker in improving their lives, it is compulsory to maintain the sanctions for those who break the law.

Therefore

, the authorities should enforce heavy punishment to warn people who tend to break the law, since

then

the public order can ensure safety.