Do the preparation task first. Then read the text and tips and do the exercises.
Some people think that some types of criminals should not go to prison. Instead they should do unpaid work in the community. To what extent do you agree?
Owing to the great variety of crimes that can be punishable by prison, some people argue that not all criminals are the same and it would therefore be more appropriate to give certain criminals community service instead. I agree that in some cases, prison may not be the best solution and community service would probably have more benefits.
One justification given for prisons is to keep society safe by removing criminals from the outside world. So the first thing to consider is if someone who has broken the law is a danger to other people. In the case of violent crime, there is an argument to keep the perpetrator away from society. However, burglary or possession of drugs, for example, does not involve violence against other people so the criminal does not present a direct danger to anyone in the community. Keeping these types of criminals in prison is expensive for the taxpayer and does not appear to be an effective punishment as they often commit the same crime again when they come out of prison.
Personally, I also believe punishments should reform people so they do not reoffend. A further reason not to put these people in prison is that they may mix with more dangerous and violent criminals, potentially committing a worse crime when they are released. By keeping them in the community, helping others, they not only learn new skills, but they could also develop more empathy and care towards others. If this occurs, society can only benefit.
Critics of this more rehabilitative approach to crime believe that justice should be harsh in order to deter people from committing similar crimes and that community service could be less likely to have that effect. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that long prison sentences deter criminals.
In conclusion, putting criminals who are not a danger to society in prison is expensive and, in my opinion, ineffective, both as a deterrent and as a form of rehabilitation. Community service for non-violent crimes benefits both society and the offender. That said, it would be useful to have more data to work out whether community service or prison is more likely to stop someone reoffending. I strongly believe that decisions on how best to deal with criminals should be based on evidence of what actually works.
- Introduce your essay by restating the question in your own words.
- If the essay asks you to what extent do you agree?, make your opinion clear throughout. You can either agree, partially agree or disagree with the statement, explaining and justifying your opinion.
- The structure should be:
- The first reason why you agree/disagree
- The second reason why you agree/disagree
- The third reason why you agree/disagree (if you have one)
- Use phrases to organise and link your ideas, e.g. Owing to … , One justification for … , The first thing to consider is … , A further reason … , In conclusion ... .
- If you do not have solid evidence for your ideas, use modal verbs such as might, may or could (e.g. they could develop more empathy and care) or other tentative phrases (e.g. it does not appear to be an effective punishment).
- Conclude by restating your opinion and summarising your two or three main arguments.
please approve for testing
We check all comments before publishing them, which is why it's taken some time for your comment to be published.
Normally we delete a comment like this -- and we deleted the other one you made -- but have let this one through so you can see that it works.
We are a small team, so it can sometimes be several hours before comments are published -- just wanted to tell you for the future.
We look forward to hearing more from you!
All the best,
The subject of how criminals should be punished is complicated, there are a lot of different opinions defending their points of view. There are two main ideas the first is arresting all the offenders, and the second idea is separating those not dangerous to society, and sending them to work in the community.
In my opinion, I agree with the second idea, because there are many expenses with the prisons and the prisoners, so if lessen the population in this environment the conditions and the quality could be better than if there were overpopulation, avoiding justice being done right.
Furthermore, these people aren't violent and dangerous to others, so with bad company in the prison, they might become bad people too. In this case, it's an awful idea to mix a different kind of person.
Therefore, it's an excellent suggestion to oblige these people to do work in society, but with supervision in the right way and strictly.
On account of the differences between several types of crimes, not all criminals should be sent to prison. It is suggested that giving certain offenders community service would be more appropriate than just jailing them.
Honestly, I completely agree that the right way to protect people from harm is to imprison criminals who conduct violent crimes that endanger human physical health. Nevertheless, this penalty may be ineffective with offenders who have administrative guilts or non-violent offenses. Since they often commit the same crime after getting out of prison, this is just a temporary punishment to ensure the security of citizens for a certain period. The nature of the problem is these crimes originate from greed and bad habits which lead to their deviant behaviors but have not yet resulted in such severe consequences that affect human life.
From my perspective, the government would rather reform these types of offenders than deter them as a kind of punishment. It is better to have an alternative that perceptively impacts these people’s awareness which is to make them do community service. Jailing these criminals just increases their hatred and develops antisocial personality. By keeping and controlling them in a community, besides learning new skills, they amend their bad manner as well as develop more empathy and care towards others.
Given these points, the application of punishment should be based on the nature of each specific crime. Prisons should only be used for perpetrators committing directly dangerous crimes to people's lives. Making non-violent criminals do community service is more of a practical way to optimize tax wasted for prisons as well as give them a chance to fix their wrong behaviors.
There are several types of crimes and for each of them, a different sentence is dictated. A paramount question to be considered is whether community servers are more accurate than prisons for some crimes.
To begin with, community servers would help and support criminals through specialized psychologists. Not only would community servers help and support them, but also it would give them jobs to help them give the society back a contribution in return.
In addition, prisons only contribute to worsening the situation owing to the fact that criminals will commit crimes again. The key to excellent behavior is learning. If they learn suitable habits, they will adapt to society and help it.
Furthermore, it is necessary to have empathy with criminals and not judge them because their hate increases when they are condemned in prison. A further reason for this is that hate feeds hate. Nevertheless, some criminals must be in jail due to their danger on the streets. It is difficult to know that a person who kills someone else, is going to change even if he/she receives help from psychologists.
In contrast, most of society believes that all criminals should be in prison. However, prisons must be all comfortable like a hotel in order to bring for the prisoners a place to recover themselves. The reason why they must live in appropriate conditions is due to his mental health. For instance, in Norway, prisons are like hotels because the government considers that criminals need a second chance to live in a community
To conclude, it would be suitable for all criminals to live in accurate prisons in order to recover themselves. Despite the cost that kind of prisons are supposed to take, they are worth paying for them. In my opinion, safety is priceless and is more important than the cost.
There are many things to consider in punishing criminals or law offender, Technically Speaking, Prison sentence varies entirely depending on a Country's legal system.
I partially agree in reinforcing community service to those non violent criminals, whereas harsh punishment for violent criminals who committed felonious crime. This perspective is reflected on my understandings in a community where social injustice is prevalent. In my country misdemeanor crime and felony crime offender are detained in the same prison cell, they only differ in the duration of prison sentence. This is where the serious societal issues of crime rate initially rooted, non violent offenders are mixed up with serious offenders, doing and smuggling drugs all a while in prison.
Further reasons to justify harsh punishment for felonious crime is it can act as deterent for potential criminals, while community service may reinforce less serious offender to reflect on their own actions and give back to the community. Moreover it may help them develop empathy towards others.
In my conclusions punishment should vary on the severity of the crime of the perpetrator, Criminals should be legally convicted and fairness in prosecution of Criminals must be reinforce.
I do agree that people who have done serious crimes have to be locked in prison, but the rest of them it would be better to keep them busy with comunity work, maybe to pick up trash or plant trees, things like that in order to benefit society and also for them to learn new habilities.
It's complicated question. Of course, crime's circumstances mean a lot when we discuss the reasons, but social circumstances mean much more when we discuss the punishment. We might to observe punishment system from very top to down. But we don't have enough time for this and my English doesn't allow to do it:-D Nevertheless, the point is: punishment system is determined by social habits, assumptions and generally by the culture. Judicial system is one of the results of long-lasting complicating process of building society. As a last resort, we might to discuss about certain country, not about whole humanity.
Regarding my opinion, I consider that drugs and non-violent crimes shouldn't be punishment with real prison sentences. I think right to keep and bear arms could be one of decision (yes, it would be a lot of accidents for the first time), and drug decriminalization could be another one.
Personally, I think that nobody was born a criminal. Every child comes to this world like an innocent angel, like a white sheet of paper, and only we - adults - are responsible for what was written on this paper. If a child was born in some problem family (alcoholics, drug takers, or criminals) it would have the only way in the future, and this way is not about good education and normal life. Unfortunately, this is how things are.
So, in my opinion, and according to my experience in my local and school, most criminals became criminals because of circumstances.
And of course, the worth way we can treat them is to put them into prison. Especially if we're talking about young criminals.
So yes, I agree with this opinion and we definitely should give non-violence criminals some social works and - this is important - we have to give them the opportunity to get proper education and useful skills so they can find a job and will have a chance to avoid criminal society in future.
yes, I do. the criminals who aren't dangerous for the people can be active in the social. this idea has a many benefits for criminals, government and other people. the first thing is this that they will be active in the social and this has positive effect on them. on the other hand, government spending and taxpayers will reduce.