Prison is not a cure for crime. To reduce crime in the long-term, courts should significantly reduce prison sentences and focus on education and community work to help criminals not to re-offend. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
There are many different opinions on the best way to reduce crime. The traditional solution is to be hard on criminals and put them in prison for a very long time. An opposing view is expressed by people with more modern ideas. They think that education and job training are the long-term solutions to cutting crime. So who is right - the traditionalists or the modernists?
People in favour of reducing prison sentences often argue that prisons should not simply be places of punishment. In traditional prisons, people learn a lot about crime, so when they leave prison, they will commit more crimes. Education, however, gives people the skills to get a job when they leave prison, which means that they will probably not re-offend. Part-time work experience in the community is also very helpful as it is a step back into everyday life in society. People can be in prison, but they can also feel they are doing useful work.
On the other hand, some people argue that long prison sentences are right because the punishment should fit the crime. If, for example, someone commits a serious crime such as bank robbery, they should go to prison for a long time. They also believe that reducing prison sentences significantly reduces people's fear of prison and consequently, people will commit more crimes. People will not be frightened of going to a prison which is like a university with learning and work experience opportunities.
In short, I agree that education and community work can have an important role in helping reduce crime, but there should be strict controls on the type of community work prisoners can do - It is important to understand that some people are a real danger to society and need to stay in prison for a very long time.
___________________________________________________________________
sample answer 2
As a punishment for criminals passed down generation after generation, imprisonment seems an effective deterrence. However, this is not true in dealing with the problem of soaring crime rate. So some people begin to challenge the existing practice, and suggest that education and job training should be offered to them. Personally, I am in favor of this proposal.
To start with, there is no evidence showing a direct link between the imprisonment of criminals and the decline of crime rate. On the contrary, after being in prison for some time, some criminal recommit the same error, which indicates the failure of the very intention of imprisonment. Secondly, criminals, as human beings, may become very sensitive and self-abased for the prison record, they may even lose the confidence to lead ordinary and law-abiding lives. As a result, they may write themselves off as hopeless and resume the role of wrongdoers again. Last but not least, establishing and running too many prisons is a great financial strain for the government, which is a waste of money as well as human resources.
In contrast, education and job training is a practice embodying humanism. It gives the wrongdoers a chance to the correct their misconduct and turn over a new leaf. This is especially true for those who go astray under some negative influence. By receiving job training, criminals may make a proper living rather than gaining profit in an illegal way. It would not long before the wrongdoers realize that they are still a member of community and they are not discriminated, which helps rebuild their confidence as well as contribute to the society.
In conclusion, sending criminals to prison may serve as a deterrent rather than a solution to the problem, yet education and job training should be effective in the long run.
