Some people hold that criminals should be sent to prison. Some others think they should do something else outside the prison as the punishment. What is your opinion?

The evolution of sentencing a criminal act has been an essential component in the history of legal jurisdiction. In modern society, public debates contentiously discuss whether lenient discipline outside the cell room should be introduced as a complementary method to penalties. However, some argue that perpetrators should, overall, be sent to jail. Both concerns hold their currency in particular contexts, especially when the causes of committing a crime are incorporated as a denoting factor during trials. In my opinion, both views partially address the rationales of juridical sentences and I believe that a reasonable juridical judge should acknowledge pragmatical lenience. It is understandable why imprisoning the convicts became a convincing action for a society to take. After all, the significance of containment is to attach intimidating repercussions to a felony as an alarm and make possible compensation to justice. Meanwhile, incarceration also isolates the underlying threats to society. It is insurmountable to predict the future acts of a convict out of the concurrent attitude the person demonstrates. Hence, physical restriction holds its weight consecutively in contemporary juridical systems. Nonetheless, impounding the prisoners may not be a comprehensive solution. Even though punishment is a necessary action to take, servitude is of the same importance for specific scenarios. In real life, this method is frequently applied for cases of juvenile convicts and non-violent offenders. In fact, community service and other probations contribute to the resolve of causal reasons behind the misdemeanor such as antagonistic emotions brought by sporadic social exclusion. In conclusion, the focal point of a trial should be the resolution of the damage caused by perpetrators instead of simple threatening, and to allow lenient disciplines to some extent grants more flexibility for an intricate case. On a final note, to leverage the compensation of a wrongful deed is a profound question that requires strenuous exploration of the balance between ethics and justice. Humanitarianism in the legal field is as meaningful as celebrating a moral standard. Therefore, I believe that expanding the connotation of punishment, rather than reducing it, is a progressive move for many societies.