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

Although

, some argue that individuals who are not obeying rules should be warned, others are in favour of

punishment

. I believe that warning should be given to minor criminals and for serious criminals

punishment

should be taken into

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

measure. The reason for giving warnings to people who committed minor crimes is that maybe some of them did that by mistake or for the first time. In

this

situation,

punishment

will be unfair and a waste of effort and government money.

For example

, strong warnings should be given to

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

individuals who smoke in

a non-smoking areas

Correct the article-noun agreement

a non-smoking area

non-smoking areas

show examples

, park in permitted areas and are not following traffic rules rather than punishing them. It is a totally different case in major crimes. Warning in these cases is not enough for the offenders because after that they may repeat

a

Change the article

an

show examples

offence.

For example

, if a person commits a serious offence like fraud, assault and murder and he/she only gets warned

then

there are high chance of repeating that again because it becomes easier for them to escape after committing a major crime.

Hence

,

punishment

is the right way to teach a lesson to the major criminals.

To conclude

, I believe that warning should be given to

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

first time

Add a hyphen

first-time

show examples

or petty offenders,

however

, repeated crimes or felony offenders

punishment

should be taken into the measure.