Now a days, there is a highly controversial issue whether to be punished with jail is better than other kind of methods, like community work or death penalty.
There are people who agree with the actual Spanish penalty system which consists in condemn criminals into a years in prison, and if the criminal has a formidable conduct, they can allow to have permission for going outside. Besides, judges and government can give the chance of doing community work with the objective of reducing the penalty and also reintroducing this people into society. I totally agree with this idea because for example, teenagers or people who had committed petty robberies can have a second chance and correct their past errors.
On contrary, there are people who think that the only effective punishment is life imprisonment. They theory are based on the majority of murderous repeats their acts when they have the opportunity to stay outside. The only way to avoid this is cutting their freedom completely. A good example that demonstrates this fact are the rapists, who rape and murder their victims again in a short period of time after achieving their freedom. Personally, I think that this extreme action should be applied to whom really are considered a real danger for society.
In conclusion, both arguments have their pros and cons and I think that it can be used depending on each situation. If the criminal has an extended list of crimes, he or she should not have the possibility of being in touch with the society to avoid future risks, and on the contrary, if the burglar has a negligible amount of robberies, may be it can be solved with community work or other lenient punishment.
Now a days
, there is a
highly
controversial issue whether to
be punished
with jail is better than other kind of methods, like community work or death penalty.
There are
people
who
agree
with the actual Spanish penalty system which consists in condemn criminals into
a years
in prison, and if the criminal has a formidable conduct, they can
allow
to have permission for going outside.
Besides
, judges and
government
can give the chance of doing community work with the objective of reducing the penalty and
also
reintroducing this
people
into society. I
totally
agree
with this
idea
because
for example
,
teenagers
or
people
who
had committed petty robberies can have a second chance and correct their past errors.
On contrary, there are
people
who
think
that the
only
effective punishment is life imprisonment.
They theory
are based
on the majority of murderous repeats their acts when they have the opportunity to stay outside. The
only
way to avoid this is cutting their freedom completely. A
good
example that demonstrates this fact are the rapists,
who
rape and murder their victims again in a short period of time after achieving their freedom.
Personally
, I
think
that this extreme action should
be applied
to whom
really
are considered
a real
danger
for society.
In conclusion
, both arguments have their pros and cons and I
think
that it can be
used
depending on each situation. If the criminal has an extended list of crimes, he or she should not have the possibility of being in touch with the society to avoid future
risks
, and
on the contrary
, if the burglar has a negligible amount of robberies,
may be
it can
be solved
with community work or other lenient punishment.