Do the preparation task first. Then read the text and tips and do the exercises.
Preparation
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.
Tips
- 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:
- Introduction
- 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)
- Conclusion
- 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.
Hi team, I have a few questions below. Thank you very much!
1) Keeping these types of criminals in prison is expensive for the taxpayer and ...
--> should / could we use 'taxpayers'? 'the taxpayer' appears to refer to a specific group(?) Are there other similar examples?
2) One justification given for prisons is to keep society safe by removing criminals from the outside world...
--> should we use 'prison' i.e. an uncountable noun here?
3) By keeping them in the community, helping others, they not only learn new skills, but they could also...
--> could we use 'not only do they learn new skills, but they could also..' or 'they do not only learn new skills, but they could also..' (and if not why not?)
--> specifically, with what sentence structures could we omit 'do' (not only learn)?
Hello _Yan_,
Both 'the taxpayer' and 'taxpayers' (without an article) are possible here. Both have a general meaning. 'Taxpayers' refers to the group of people who pay tax. 'The taxpayer' refers to our image or concept of the noun. In other words, we are describing the concept in our heads, not a particular individual:
This use of the definite article is fairly common:
The blue whale is the largest living creature on our planet.
'Prison' would describe the concept of prison, while 'prisons' describes the actual physical buildings. Both could be used in this sentence.
The first is fine. It's an example of inversion used with a negative adverbial ('not only'). There are many similar adverbials:
Never have I see a better show.
Hardly had she left when the phone rang.
No sooner had we arrived than we started arguing.
The second example does not sound very natural to me. Although we can use an auxiliary verb to add emphasis to a sentence, this is generally done when we are disagreeing with or correcting someone:
Paul didn't go to Paris.
That's wrong. Paul did go to Paris.
Your context does not suggest any kind of correction or disagreement, so it feels rather strange.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Good day Sir/Madam,
I would like to ask about the expression ‘So the first thing is to…’. In academic and formal writing, should I avoid using ‘thing’ or ‘so’ or is it still fine?
Thanks a lot for taking your time to read this. Hope to hear from you.
Your sincerely,
Kimmie
Hi kimmie,
Thanks for your question. In academic and formal writing, there is a general preference for precision over vagueness, so generally speaking it's better to avoid this usage of so and thing and use more precise and academic terms when they are available (e.g. Therefore, the first factor/issue to consider is ...).
However, if you search academic writing, you will find writers do use thing sometimes, especially in fixed phrases (e.g. the first thing / the same thing) or technical terms (e.g. the Internet of Things). Some writers might also use more general terms first before moving onto more precise terms.
(Note: The essay on the page above is in a somewhat formal style but not very formal.)
I hope that helps.
Jonathan
LearnEnglish team
Hi Jonathan
This is immensely valuable for me.
Thank you so much for your swift response.
Hope you have a nice day.
Kim
yessir
In my country it is often debated whether community services are better than prison for certain crimes. I think it's pretty obvious that it should be an option for less important faults. However, sometimes it happens that a judge decides to grant this benefit to some type of powerful criminals who cause more significant damage to society than others who do not have the same possibility, such as financial criminals or corrupt government agents. In my opinion, these types of sentences can have a bad impact on people, since they see that these behaviors are not severely punished and are somehow protected by the law. In conclusion, I agree that certain types of crimes should avoid prison, but I believe that before implementing it, the society must agree on which crimes will be able to enjoy this possibility to ensure that justice is fair for all.
please approve for testing
Hello aaron,
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,
Kirk
LearnEnglish team
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.