Crime And Punishment Essay Prompts
There are specific characteristics that your essay topics about crime and punishment should meet. First, it has to be interesting. Secondly, ensure you can write it well. Most importantly, it has to be relevant. With the right topic, every writing process flows seamlessly.
Crime And Punishment Essay Prompts
Additionally, you can hire our essay writers to help. They understand every stage and will produce an excellent crime and punishment essay for you. Also, they have mastered the story, and thus no topic about crime and punishment is difficult for them. Send a request today to get an expert to work on your topic.
Below is a collection of IELTS essay questions for the topic of crime and punishment. These questions have been written based on common issues in IELTS and some have been reported by students in their test.
Hate crime essay topics are upsetting but interesting. There is nothing more terrifying than the idea of being targeted just because of your mere existence. Tackle this fear by providing explanations and solutions in your essay.
The Internet is an amazing invention, but it has also brought us lots of pain and other problems. Check these crime topics for essays. Which of the titles looks more interesting? The choice is all yours!
What motivates criminals and why they commit crimes despite the fear of punishment? There are many different crime topics to write about in this category. Check out any of them and start research for your essay!
Are you a law school student studying criminal behavior or forensic science? Or maybe just looking for good criminal justice topics, questions, and hypotheses? Look no further! Custom-writing.org experts offer a load of criminology research topics and titles for every occasion. Criminological theories, types of crime, the role of media in criminology, and more. Our topics will help you prepare for a college-level assignment, debate, or essay writing.
To put it simply, criminology studies the anatomy of a crime. More specifically, it explores the causes, costs, and consequences of it. Criminal justice is different from criminology in the sphere it covers. It is the system established for dealing with crimes: the ways of detection, detention, prosecution, and punishment. In short, think of criminal justice as a part of law enforcement.
If you have practised for IELTS writing, then you have more than likely encountered the IELTS topic of crime and punishment. I am not talking about the book by Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoevsky. Instead, I mean the general topic that covers issues relating to crime, criminals, police, the law, and methods of punishing lawbreakers.
This is a pretty common topic in IELTS writing and also in the speaking test, so today I would like to show you some useful vocabulary and also to run through some crime and punishment IELTS essays so that you can better understand this topic.
The topic of crime and punishment could be considered quite controversial in some ways. Think about the issues that arise: imprisonment, violence, reforming criminals. These are serious issues that cannot be summed up in short sentences without further justification. As such, this is not a common topic for part one of the speaking test.
Therefore, crime and punishment mostly arises in part three of the IELTS speaking test. This is where you are asked about bigger issues that require more thought and explanation. These can be viewed as similar to the sorts of question you see in task two of the writing exam.
This topic is much more common in the writing exam than other parts because it requires the expression of complex ideas. As such, you will see many IELTS writing task 2 questions about crime and punishment.
Forming an argument about a more complex issue can be challenging. It involves backing up your stance with evidence while expressing yourself in a convincing way. The following persuasive essay prompts pose questions about politics, education, health, and more.
If none of the above topics appeal to you, see if these prompts would make an interesting persuasive essay. Remember to choose an issue you care about and one that you can back up with additional information.
Retribution theorists claim that individuals are rational beings, capable of making informed decisions, and therefore rule breaking is a rational, conscious decision. They propose an 'offence-based tariff', that is, "a set of punishments of varying severity which are matched to crimes of differing seriousness: minor punishments for minor crimes, more severe punishments for more serious offences" (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007, p. 44). While the idea of retribution as a justification for criminal punishment often enjoys intuitive support, it has been subjected to various strains of criticism. Some critics, for example, have raised questions about the difficulties of ordering or ranking offences. Is it possible to develop a satisfactory scale of punishments for all crimes? Others question the extent to which crimes are committed by rational agents and argue that retribution unduly rationalizes criminality. It has also been suggested that punishing individuals because they have acted wrongly does not address the underlying causes and social conditions that have led to criminality in the first place, and that punishment needs to incorporate a more rehabilitative approach (Hudson, 2003; Zedner, 2004).
The theory of incapacitation assumes that the state has a duty to protect the public from future wrongs or harms, and that such protection can be afforded through some form of incarceration or incapacitation. It prevents future crime by disabling or restricting the offender's liberty, their movements or ability to commit a further wrong. The most extreme form of incapacitating punishment is the death penalty, but there are several other forms including imprisonment, curfews, house arrest, electronic monitoring and disqualification from driving for drunken drivers. Incapacitating sentencing, however, has been subject to serious criticism, on both moral and empirical grounds (see for example: Zedner, 2004; Binder and Notterman, 2017). One major concern is that incapacitating sentences effectively punish individuals for crimes not yet committed. An inherent risk with incapacitation is that some individuals who have committed a crime, and are thus incarcerated or incapacitated, would not have gone on to (re)offend. Moreover, as Barton (2005, p. 464) suggests, "even if the methods of prediction were accurate, there are naturally moral and ethical questions about incarcerating individuals for what they may do rather than what they have actually done" (emphasis in original). Yet this justification for punishment has proved highly popular among politicians and the media, and has clearly played a role in significant rises in prison populations across many jurisdictions.
Theories of deterrence draw on Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism, captured in the maxim, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" (see for example: Shackleton, 1972; Baujard, 2009). In similar vein to incapacitation, deterrence justifies punishment based on what it will achieve in the future. Theorists claim that the pain of punishment and the costs of imposing that pain upon the offender are outweighed by the social benefits consequently enjoyed. A distinction has been drawn between two types of deterrence: individual (or specific) and general deterrence. Individual deterrence refers to the aim of imposing punishment to deter individuals who have already offended from doing so again. General deterrence justifies the imposition of punishment to deter other potential offenders. The logic of this theory is that if the imposition of criminal punishment deters people from committing crimes then the general public can enjoy a greater sense of safety and security (Hudson, 2003).
Deterrence has often been criticized for being neither effective or morally acceptable. The research evidence is generally inconclusive on whether punishment deters potential offenders from committing future crimes. Furthermore, deterrence allows for punishments to be imposed that are disproportionate to the harms done, for the innocent to be punished and for the punishment of crimes that have not yet been committed (Hudson, 2003; see also von Hirsch et al., 1999).
The central premise of rehabilitation is that punishment can prevent future crime by reforming the individual offender's behaviour. Rehabilitation may involve education and vocational programmes, counselling, intervention programmes or skills training. The behavioural premise of this theory of punishment is that criminal behaviour is not a rational choice, but determined by social pressures, psychological difficulties, or situational problems of various kinds (Ashworth, 2007).
The various rationales for criminal punishment can be achieved with non-custodial measures. Accordingly, the international community has recognized that effective criminal justice responses necessitate that sentencing authorities have a wide range of penalties at their disposal. The Commentary to The Tokyo Rules advocates that sentencing authorities "should be guided by the principle that imprisonment should be a measure of last resort" and that "every effort should be made to apply non-custodial measures" (1993, p. 17). Recognizing the different goals of the administration of criminal justice, The Tokyo Rules emphasize that states should "ensure a proper balance between the rights of individual offenders, the rights of victims, and the concern of society for public safety and crime prevention" (1990, Rule 1.4). At the same time, the Rules call on member states "to develop non-custodial measures within their legal systems" to reduce the use of imprisonment, and to "rationalize criminal justice policies, taking into account the observance of human rights, the requirements of social justice and the rehabilitation needs of the offender" (1990, Rule 1.5). According to the Commentary to The Tokyo Rules, non-custodial measures are of "considerable potential value for offenders, as well as for the community", and can be an appropriate sanction for a whole range of offences and many types of offenders (1993, p. 5).