I Do Not Think Lawbreakers Should Go Unpunished

"I do not think lawbreakers should go unpunished. By controlling the act of jaywalking you are endangering the life of yourself and others. If the action of jaywalking only affected yourself the punishment might not be so severe. By causing potential harm to the life of others you should be penalized for this action. By not taking action against jaywalkers you are suggesting that jaywalking is too little of a crime to take action against, and that breaking the law is not important enough to be punished. Even though jaywalking is a relatively small offense, teaching people to obey the small rules in life will teach them to obey even greater rules once necessary. Thus, by not punishing the given perpetrator, you show that some rules can be excused.
From peeing in our pants to being disrespectful or rude our parents give us spankings and beatings with various household appliances. So on that same level, should the government (our parents in this case) not whip or beat us for jaywalking (a crime that harms others as well)? The purpose of spankings is to teach children to obey fearfully, and through that fear to obey other rules fearfully. Also by punishing people, we teach them to associate sin (or the breaking of the law) with a fearful punishment. Will we not have less jaywalkers if everyone is too afraid to jaywalk?" "Sure, I guess so, but isn't whipping still a little too serious of a punishment?" "Too serious?! Do murderers not receive the death penalty? Thieves jail time? And even loiterers fines? Is loitering more serious than jaywalking? For standing around on owned property without a purpose you are fined. Does loitering hurt anyone? Yet if we jaywalk we are merely fined as well. These crimes are quite different yet the same punishment is given for them both. Is absently standing around the same as obstructing drivers and endangering others? Is the law then not