We know that the knowledge of punishment may be a much stronger deterrent than the severity. In other words, if you think that you just will certainly be caught and punished for committing against the law, you’re less likely to try to do so. Thoughts of harsher punishments being more practical at preventing would-be criminals from ending their intentions stem from the concept of "deterrence", which may be described as an actor being motivated to not engage in an action thanks to fear of punishment. In fact, research shows that individuals don't seem to be conditioned to act perfectly rationally when it involves crime and punishment, and decisions to interact in criminal activities might not always be supported by rational analysis.
There is strong evidence to suggest that prison sentences are ineffective at reducing reoffending. One of the foremost influential studies was conducted by Franklin Zimring, who looked into the consequences of California’s use of longer prison sentences on recidivism rates. He concluded that there was no evidence for a deterrent effect that the hostility towards criminals related to longer sentences might actually increase reoffending. He, therefore, argued that enhancing prison sentences may not be a huge help in deterring criminals. Furthermore, the punishment of convicted criminals is very costly. It has been estimated that the U.S. federal government spends 26,000 dollars every year for every inmate. In addition to the cost of keeping prisoners in prison, members of their families who are also affected by the imprisonment; an estimate suggests that 18 billion dollars is spent each year on child support and food stamp payments as a result of incarceration.

Since the memorial, heavy prison sentences have become the best way to counteract convicted criminals from reoffending in many countries. Criminal people should be strictly criticized, and their crimes will be paid with their time.  Despite acknowledging that the benefits of this problem outweigh the drawbacks, I will discuss the negative side in this essay. 

One of the most prominent merits of this dilemma is people are overwhelmed with grief and petrifying when they are judged in the courtroom. In this scenario, innocent individuals may not have any opportunities to retell all of their circumstances and elucidate the criminal behaviors. Additionally, the law and justice have already taken their capability of speech, and lawbreakers are overwhelmed by their acts without any explanation and demonstration. For example, people who have eventually committed a criminal behavior will receive many solemn criticisms and cannot demonstrate their innocence. Therefore, heavy prison sentences cause a negative effect on the offenders and the inequality of judging in the courtroom. 

On the other hand, other individuals think that justice and law are actually solemn and violent when they mute all capability of human's speech. Furthermore, people who don't believe in law and justice will argue and oppose with many fights for their family and innocent convicts; meanwhile, crimes also stand out and have a bad thought about the justice and the government has already taken their explanation and their lives. As a result, these imprisonments create a myriad of disagreement and a significant conflict between the government and citizens.

To sum up, heavy prison sentences cause many negative impacts on daily life such as the incapability of people’s demonstrations and explanations. The other drawback is a conflict between people and their government when justice and law are truly violent and serious and the mass of disagreements appear. I believe heavy prison sentences are not the best way to prevent convicted criminals from reoffending, and we will have many different alternatives in the future.