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

Some would argue that law-breakers ought to be warned rather than punished. I personally believe that strict sanction still has benefits for society at large, the reason for my opinion will be elaborated in

this

essay before the conclusion is reached.

To begin

with, it might seem reasonable for some individuals to believe that some criminals who commit negligible crimes should be warned

first

because everybody deserves a

second

chance. Some offenders might offence the rule as they do not consider it thoroughly regarding the consequence of their action.

For instance

, countless younger that commit some minor guilts

such

as stealing or punching their friends, should have done those actions because of without any villainous intention.

Then

,

this

is the reason why some people want to give them a chance.

However

, it is undeniable that the effective solution to solving

crime

problems is deterrence. I strongly believe that who have made either minor offences or serious crimes should be justified and receive punishment by law.

In Addition

, the

crime

rate will increase if perpetrators knew that they will just

warned

Change the verb form

warn

be warned

show examples

without severe sanctions, they would do more guilts in future.

Moreover

, an adequate penalty,

not

Add a missing verb

is not

show examples

only the best way to give lessons to offenders, but

also

give justice to their victims as well.

As a result

, it is a better way to minimize

crime

in society. To summarize,

although

, non-serious criminals should be warned in order to probably turn to the right patch, appropriate sanctions for those who commit crimes

also

have a crucial role for society in reducing the

crime

rate and confirming safety for citizens as well.