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

Some feel that law-breakers ought to be entitled to a warning

instead

of strict sanctions. I largely disagree with

this

sentiment as

punishment

is crucial for society at large. Those who argue in favour of warnings claim that incarceration encourages a cycle of criminal behaviour.

For example

, if an individual is arrested for a low-level narcotics offence, there is a strong chance the incident will become part of their permanent record.

This

then

makes it more difficult to apply for jobs or seek higher education. If the perpetrator in question

also

spends time in prison

as a result

, they may have made connections among the prisoner population. All these factors combine to increase the likelihood of committing

crimes

in the future since other avenues have become restricted. If the offence is insignificant, the

punishment

appears to do more harm than good. Though the policy detailed above is logical for very minor infractions,

punishment

is needed for most

crimes

. The various justifications for

punishment

typically include deterrence, rehabilitation, public safety and justice itself. Of these, deterrence is the most often cited and effective. Most potential criminals do not commit

crimes

because they are aware of the punishments and

this

ensures a minimum degree of public safety. If a person knew they would only receive a warning for a more serious infraction,

then

there would almost undoubtedly be more crime. Even in the case of negligible offences, stronger punishments that are not part of one’s permanent record would better curb future criminality. In conclusion, though warnings may be preferable for certain minor

crimes

, the principle of deterrence justifies

punishment

. If a system of warnings were combined with other measures,

such

as improved education and mental health support,

this

reform would be more feasible.