Some people think lawbreakers should be sent to prisons while others claim they should be made to work in communities Discuss both and give your own opinion

Imprisonment is the most popular penalty for offenders in many countries in the world. However, many people doubt about its effectiveness on petty crimes. I think those criminals should be punished to work for local communities instead of being put into jail.

With no doubt, offenders should be punished for their illegal activities. Their disruptive behaviors harm the social stability, for example, they might inflict economic damage or even destroy families. Therefore, deprivation of their liberty is necessary and fair. Never would culprits do self-examination until facing the restriction of freedom. In my opinion, some potential culprits may actually commit a crime, if there is no imprisonment.

Obviously, sending petty criminals to work can be more effective punishment. On the one hand, forcing lawbreakers to labor is another way to deprive their liberty, because they have to work under judges’ instruction, it means that their activities are strictly controlled. Even though they dislike their work, they have to do it. On the other hand, the local community can get benefit from these criminal’s manual labor in the meantime. For instance, residents do not need to buy something that the criminals can make for free, and enjoy the cleanliness of the streets that petty criminals have swept.

In a broader perspective, using the identical criteria to treat different types of lawbreakers is unjustified. There should be distinction in my view. Besides, petty criminals are comparatively less dangerous to society, so letting them out to work would be more beneficial to the community.

To sum up, imprisonment is an indispensable form of penalty, but for some offenders whose crimes are minor, work for public and have contribution might be a better option to relieve their guilt.