You are currently viewing Criminal should be cured, not punished. Essay for ICSE Exam Class 10
Criminal should be cured

Criminal should be cured, not punished. Essay for ICSE Exam Class 10

Question:

Criminal should be cured, not punished.

Share your opinion either for or against the sentiment.

Criminal should be cured, not punished.

 

Answer:
No man takes birth as a criminal. Their situation instigates them to do what their heart never wills. Their circumstances can be anything it can be due to poverty, ailments or shortage of food. In spite of curing the corrupt, the system chains them, Society should evaluate the pros and cons of the prisoner, he is chained and whipped behind the bars. After great suffering in jail, they just convert the criminals into a wild beast.

Crime and offence is an illness, a state of sickness, hence crime must be cured, and hence criminals need cure no matter on what grounds they commit it. Criminals are also humans, so why to treat them as wild beasts and monsters. If they murder, kidnap, rob or do any sexual abuse, they may either be mentally sick or act like this due to their circumstance or problems like tack of money etc. Perhaps their guardians or parents had not have given them proper education or they are from a criminal kind of background. They might be in need of something or the other, but without any sort of information, the criminals are given punishment which is too harsh.

They are kept in hell and watched around the clock that turn the criminals into wild beasts. Treatment is required, they need to be cured and not punished. As even the Bible says, ‘Hate the sin not the sinner.’ Let me put an example to make the discussion easier to understand, suppose a man has murdered 7 people. Cops catch him and he is sentenced to death. My question is that, if we kill him, will the people he murdered, come back? No, right? So might be he is mentally sick and needs a cure. Curing the corrupt is a solution, Not Killing. He might be some one’s son or father, right? So why not cure him rather than granting him a punishment which can destroy his whole family? However, punishment can be advocated on the following grounds. First, punishment acts as a deterrent for criminals to offend.

It is reasonable to assume that the 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 claim for the homely environment for felons. They should comprehend whom they are going to nest in that home. Third, the widespread support for punishment rests 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. Also, it prevents offenders from returning to society and committing the crime again. Furthermore, facts show that during the mediaeval period, when there was no law, and no punishment, accordingly, the crime rate was. Thus, punishment turns criminals to rethink and reconcile their punishment before offending.

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.
Intentional or unintentional, and, whatever the magnitude of crime it is, punishment should be there but the degree of punishing differs. Last but not least in a few unhealthy situations, if it forces somebody to indulge in crime, it does not necessary that he should ruin the lives of others on this earth.

Leave a Reply