the judicial system in addressing crime and sentencing people is not accounted for by the number of inmates behind bars, but by the quality of outcome or change in behaviour and attitude witnessed from the people who find themselves in prison.
Therefore, a critical question remains on the effectiveness of incarceration as a better way of combating crime and dealing with the most offensive and violent criminals. Violent offenders who find their way behind bars may, to a significant extent, deserve it because they need to serve jail time as a punishment. Life imprisonment ensures that incarcerated persons pay fully for their crimes physically, emotionally, and psychologically (Roberts, 2004, p. 61). However, paying for their crimes is not just enough and thus in my argument, imprisonment to a significant extent is not an effective way of dealing with most violent offenders as much as it is an approved way. The paper evaluates the positive effects of imprisonment versus the many negatively felt impacts of incarceration both on the state and the individual offender.
Imprisonment implies that a person has to spend part of or the rest of his or her life in prison (Roth, 2005, p. 207). In this case, it is an advantage to the public in terms of safety. Not only is the public safe but also the offender who might face the wrath of the people he or she has offended. As a result, law and order are maintained. Besides this, a criminal in safe custody interacts with other inmates, providing an opportunity to better their ways of life and gain technical skills. Inmates provided with professional counselling and spiritual guidance are as well equipped with techniques for healthy living and production so that when they are reintegrate into the society, they can live peacefully with the masses.
However, imprisonment is not the best way to deal with most violent offenders and has an absolute disadvantage both to the citizens, the individual and the state. Firstly, it leads to