Some people think that the best way to reduce crime is to give longer prison sentences. Others, however, believe there are better alternative ways of reducing crime.

Crime levels have been increasing at an exorbitant rate in the recent decades. The methods with which to kerb the rising levels of crime are often a debated topic. Some argue that the best way to reduce delinquency is to give longer prison sentences, while others contend that there are better alternatives to tackle this epidemic. Both sides of this debate will be analysed in this essay before a reasoned conclusion is drawn. Many believe that handing out longer jail sentences is the right measure to be employed, this makes sense as the main purpose of such punishments is to deter individuals from committing crimes in the first place. For instance, Saudi Arabia, where ramifications for committing a crime are much harsher than the rest of the world, has much lower crime rates than even the most developed nations. This example illustrates the fear that harsher sentences can instil in the hearts of potential criminals. Hence, it is obvious why this point of view has garnered support. On the contrary, some argue that there are better alternatives than longer prison sentences such as educational programs and community services. Take a study conducted by a non-profit organisation in my area, for example, which found out that people become more empathetic after spending time with people from disadvantaged backgrounds. As a result of this increased sympathy, people are less likely to commit heinous crimes. Therefore, it is comprehensible why this is a popular opinion among many. After musing upon both sides of this argument, it is felt that a balance should be struck between handing out longer prison sentences and other measures. It is hoped that felony rates will be decreased in the coming years and the world will become a safer place to live in.