Some people believe that dangerous criminals should spend their rest of their lives in prison, while others think that everyone deserves a second chance and that these offenders should be reintegrated into society. What is your opinion?

In the world where crime seems to gloomily be on the increase, what to do with inmates after they serve their sentence has become a controversial issue. There are mainly two lines of thought. One that suggests that dangerous criminals should be kept in captivity for the rest of their lives and the other that believes to reintegrate them into society. Understandably, those who support the life sentence have strong motives to hold that opinion. Minacious felons cannot be allowed to roam freely even after they served punishment. As per the Indian Police Service research, 50% of the inmates are re-offenders. Hence, it is risky to decide to reintegrate them into society. Moreover, law-abiding citizens might feel reluctant to have a person who transgressed law as their neighbour. On the flip side, there are always groups of philanthropists who believe in second chance. Their argument is, convicts can never correct or prove themselves right if they were not given an opportunity and any person cannot be punished forever regardless of the severity of the crime. For instance, BBC telecasted a documentary with a criminal who started the NGO to serve the needy. Thus, such cases witness the advantage of giving criminals a chance. In my perspective, it is difficult to choose a side in regards to this issue. In one way, I too feel giving a second chance, but not at the cost of innocent victims. I think that each case should be treated independently and enough filters should be put in place to make sure convicts who are freed do not re-offend.