Some people think that all law breakers should be put into prison while others believe that there are better alternatives. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Nowadays, there is a debate about how to treat those who break the rules. Some people think that lawbreakers should be sent to jail,

while

others believe that there are better ways to deal with them. I understand that

prison

is necessary for certain crimes, but in most cases, it is an overreaction. Let's explore both perspectives. Those who support sending lawbreakers to

prison

argue that it is necessary to prevent them from negatively influencing others, especially young people. Teenagers are already inclined to disobey rules, and having someone encouraging them would only make them more rebellious. Allowing criminals to roam free would lead to more chaos and anarchy.

Additionally

, crimes like drug dealing continuously harm society, and the only way to stop

further

damage is by putting the dealers in

prison

.

On the other hand

, there are people who believe in alternative punishments

instead

of imprisonment. They claim that sending someone to jail, particularly if they have a minor criminal record, increases the likelihood of them becoming associated with dangerous gangs and joining them. After serving their sentences and being released, they may act even more dangerously.

Furthermore

, if the rule breaker is the main provider for their family and committed the crime

due to

poverty, imprisoning them would make their family even poorer, perpetuating the cycle. In conclusion,

while

the effectiveness of

prison

as a punishment is debatable, I firmly believe that it is not always the best solution and can sometimes make the situation worse.

Instead

, some alternatives could be considered,

such

as depriving these individuals of certain social benefits and assigning them voluntary jobs, like environmental clean-up.