Final answer:
It is essential to consider the offender's reasons for minor or harmless offenses before applying formal sanctions, as not all deviant behavior is necessarily bad or punishable. Societies aim to deliver fair justice by assessing the context of the violations and weighing mitigating factors. The effectiveness of strict punishment versus alternatives is a matter of ongoing debate in legal and sociological discussions.
Step-by-step explanation:
When determining whether formal sanctions should be applied to minor or harmless offenses, it is important to consider the reasons behind the offender's actions. Societies use legal codes to maintain formal social control through laws and enforce them with penalties that are typically proportional to the offense. However, sociologists argue that not all deviant behavior is bad or punishable, pointing to acts of civil disobedience during the civil rights movement as examples of beneficial social deviance. The philosophy that the punishment should fit the crime dates back to principles such as the Code of Hammurabi, and contemporary justice systems often consider mitigating factors to administer justice fairly.
Informal sanctions, on the other hand, arise through social interactions and can involve behaviors that may not be considered criminal but still deviate from expected social norms. While formal norms and the associated consequences can deter crime, the use of incarceration, especially for juveniles, has been debated with respect to its effectiveness and potential to increase future crime. Hence, diversion programs and other alternatives may be more suitable in certain cases.
Ultimately, the question of whether to punish minor offenses strictly or to take into account the offender's reasons touches upon broader themes of justice, fairness, and social control. It's essential for a society to strike a balance between upholding law and order and ensuring that the punishment administered is just and appropriate for the circumstances surrounding the offense.