The rise in crime rates globally in the twenty-first century poses a significant challenge for

societies worldwide. Consequently, there is a growing fear among the general public, leading
to calls for more severe penalties to be imposed on criminals. I align my views with
alternative methods, as some believe that advocating for extended prison sentences is the
optimal solution.

Advocates for longer prison terms argue that it enhances the safety of innocent individuals
significantly. The idea is that by removing offenders who have committed serious crimes such
as theft, violence, arson, and murder from society, the likelihood of the general public
remaining secure increases. Moreover, during their incarceration, offenders have the
opportunity to undergo rehabilitation through various services provided. For example, they
can reflect on their actions and educate themselves on how to avoid committing crimes upon
release. Additionally, the extended prison term acts as a deterrent, dissuading potential
criminals.

On the other hand, proponents of alternative approaches suggest that more practical methods
can effectively reduce crime. They contend that sparing the lives of those who commit
hideous crimes results in a wastage of public funds. Therefore, they advocate for more severe
penalties, such as the death sentence, to serve as a potent deterrent. This, they argue, would
sharply decrease crime rates. Importantly, this does not imply releasing threatening
individuals into the community; rather, it suggests that these individuals can benefit society
while incarcerated.

In conclusion, the arguments for and against lengthy imprisonment are compelling. The
government must carefully examine these perspectives to determine the most effective
strategy for safeguarding innocent lives from dangerous offenders. I believe that addressing
the root causes and exploring more practical and effective alternatives should be a priority for
the government in tackling the complex issue of rising crime rates.