Crime is an illness, a state of impaired functioning, therefore crime must be treated, and hence criminals need cure no matter on what grounds they commit it. First, punishment acts as a deterrent for criminals to offend. It is reasonable to assume that existence of punishment will lead some potential offenders to decide against the risk associated with it. Second, since the birth of any nation, punishment is accepted as a tangible asset and now, opposition proponents claims for homely environment for felons.
They should comprehend whom they are going to nest in that home, the atrocious criminals (animals) which is nest to impossible. Third, the widespread support for punishment rest on the important societal goal served by it. It is the most effective way to protect society (its structures and individuals) from offenders. Therefore, crime is a crime and it needs pain not relief. Punishment is justifiable because of its deterrent effect, which protects the right of innocent people by discouraging premeditated criminals. It creates fear among criminals.
They think twice before committing any offence as of risk along with it. This logical inference is fully supported by anecdotal evidence. For example, some robbers in the U. S states that they don’t use guns while robbery because of death penalty risk if shooting occurs. Also, it prevents offenders from returning to society and committing crime again. As s/he would have to remain behind the bars and society would remain safe. Furthermore, facts shows that during the mediaeval period, when there were no law, and no punishment, accordingly, number of crime rates were high than today.
Thus, punishment turns criminals to rethink and reconcile their punishment before offending. Practically, importance of punishment far out weigh purported values of providing help to offenders. They try to defend themselves by finding out the flaws in punishment. They denounce that care, psychological help, counseling, medical treatment should be offered to criminals. To be practical, let us assume that they all are being supported with this. But who’s the guarantee that they won’t do crime again. They still possess license to kill.
In addition, nobody likes to punish, but if that punish provides relief to amass then its not exactly right to call punish. They say,” Death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore death penalty is wrong. ” But, here, killing is sacrificing. In similar fashion, people consider that punishment is a violation against of “human rights” and natural rights”. How oaf it seems people blindly supporting the rights of aggravated people not considering the rights of innocents who has been victimized by them. They view that criminals have only pain which is bias.
Hence, prisons are for prisoners, and, similarly homely environment can only be for humans not for atrocious criminals who don’t value human’s feelings. Existence of offenders in the society always threats the innocent mind. In reality, the fear that criminal should be having get transfer to society people incase of help is provided to them. So prisons are more suitable of prisoners. A state of chaos would rein in the society. Uncomfortably always exists in the society members. Even, it they don’t crime a psychological effect will be always there in society’s people which is neither good for its structures nor individuals.
Moreover, it makes them to realize the victim’s inviolable life or sufferings who think there is no law, and it’s a jungle-rule. In addition, it provides peace of mind for the victim’s family and victims. From the general standpoint, when a working man from a family is killed then along with him his old parents, his infant children and his widowed wife is also forced to be under the grave with him. Therefore, punishment is only best option left behind with human beings. In short we cannot survive as a society without prisons. Chaos would, inevitably, rein.
We, therefore, must tolerate prisons even as we recognize the risks associated with wrongful convictions or discrimination. Also, proponents of opposition should find alternative measures for punishment, without side-effect, instead of pinpointing flaws of punishment. And, whatever the tone of crime it is whether intentional or unintentional, punishment should be there but the degree of punishing differs. At last, some unhealthy circumstances force somebody to venture into crime, but it does not mean that he could ruin the life of every creature on this earth.