Certain people believe that the only way to reduce crime is sentencing criminals for longer periods while others believe alternative methods should be used to lower crimes. Discuss both views and your opinion.

Controlling crime is always a priority in a civil society. While some believe that the duration of sentences must be revised and increased, others think some other ways may prove effective in a check on the crime rate. The following paragraphs will discuss both sides of the argument and try to conclude.

By increasing the span of a sentence, it can be ensured that there can be a certain level of check on the crimes. Probably this mindset emerges from a thought that criminals would avoid doing unlawful actions because they do not wish to spend a long time behind bars. The fear of prolonged jail stays may instill fear in these people. Also, it might help the inmates review their actions and life, for they can get ample time to stay away from the people or circumstances in which they performed illegal acts, further motivating them to start their life afresh as law-abiding individuals.

The other thought that promotes coming up with alternative methods arises from the fact that the age-old ways of preventing crime have largely failed, and there is a need to review these approaches. One of the other strategies could be having stricter punishments, for a sense of terror is essential to stop these individuals from performing acts that could hurt individuals or a community. The other strategies may be more reformative in nature and could be directed towards imparting training, increasing employability, and providing psychological consultations to the prisoners.

I believe there should be a mix of various methods with discretion working with prisoners, for one shoe does not fit all. The severity of the crime, the background of the culprit, and the psychological aspect must be taken into account. Finally, no one way is enough and accurate for all under all circumstances.