Prison is the best punishment for criminals.

To what extent do you

agree or disagree with this statement?
These days, the question of whether criminals should be kept in prison still remains a
source of controversy. In this essay, I will discuss the rationales why it can be both
detrimental and beneficial before showing my partial support for this scheme.

On the one hand, incarcerating offenders has a variety of advantages. One of the most
persuasive arguments is that it can deter future offenses by other lawbreakers. By
ensuring that individuals responsible pay a high price for their acts, it may set a good
example for society as a whole, thus lowering crime rates. Another thing to consider is
that it only promotes lawful conduct when incarceration is available and functions as a
horrifying consequence for those who commit crimes, which is also a crucial
instrument for the government to hold influence and implement out the legal system.
As a consequence, more safety would be ensured.

On the other hand, I would side with people arguing that imprisonment brings about
nothing but drawbacks. First, it might let the prisoners become more violent. This is
because those offenders are having contact with a much more brutal environment,
forcing them to act accordingly in order to defend themselves against unsafe
situations. Second, it deters the prisoners from having opportunities to reintegrate into
the society. Having lasting exposure to such an atmosphere in jail would only lead to
difficulties in engaging social orders, especially when they can be discriminated by
other people. Such negative influences, as a result, might allow higher chance of
recommitting crime after being released.

In conclusion, although imprisonment can have positive outcomes such as ensuring

lower crime rate and better safety, it is believed that other demerits can also have
substantial effects from violent environment and lower chance of rehabilitation. I
believe that there are other methods which should be taken into consideration so that
the negative outcomes would be limited.
On the one hand, conducting experiments on animals can reap a number of benefits.
One of the most compelling ones is that animal testing can help reseachers in finding
drugs and treatments to improve health. Scientists and practitioners can have
numerous opportunities to test different theories and methods on animals without
worrying about any detrimental effects on human, thus enabling more chances for
medical breakthrough. Another point to consider is the fact that it is hard and
expensive to carry out any alternatives to animal testing as other initiatives would be
hazardous, especially when it may result in inaccurate testing result which leads to
substantial drawbacks later.

On the other hand, I would side with those who argue that it is inhumane to conduct
experiment on animals. In terms of ethnic perspective, it would against the animal
rights to invade their safety for scientific purposes. Every species in the world
deserves to be protected, even animals, which means such practices would lead to
deteriorating moral standards. Furthermore, animal testing would bring a number of
animals to the verge of extinction. It is undeniable that experiments have to undergo
various unsuccessful attempts before reaching final results, while the available species
for laboratory researches would be limited. Such situations, as a result, may negatively
influence the ecosystem and the biodiversity.