ENTRY #21- AN OPINION ESSAY DEATH PENALTY Writing /Term Test

Preparation

Reading material

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.

Learn how to write an opinion essay

Tips

1. Introduce your essay by restating the question in your own words.
2. 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.
3. 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
4. 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 ... .
5. 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).
6. Conclude by restating your opinion and summarising your two or three main arguments.


Before reading 

Do the preparation task first. Then read the text and tips and do the exercises. Preparation task
Match the definitions (a–f) with the vocabulary (1–6). Vocabulary Definition
1. D       harsh
2. A       a perpetrator
3. E      to deter someone from doing something
4. F       to re-offend
5. C       rehabilitative
6. B       empathy
a. someone who has committed a crime or a violent act
b. the ability to understand how other people feel
c. able to bring someone back to health or a normal life
d. strict; severe
e. to make someone avoid or stop doing something
f. to commit a crime again (not for the first time)

Post reading

Task 1

Are the sentences true or false?

Answer

1. The first paragraph should explain the question in your own words. TRUE

2. You shouldn’t give your opinion until the conclusion. FALSE

3. You must always give both sides of the argument. FALSE

4. Structures like One justification for … and The first thing to consider is … link ideas together, and help the reader follow your argument. TRUE

5. Modal verbs (e.g. may in Prison may not be an effective punishment) make sentences sound more certain. FALSE

6. If you think of an extra idea, mention it in the conclusion. FALSE

Task 2 

Complete the sentences with words and phrases from the box. 

However - One justification for - Owing to - The first thing to consider - In conclusion -It could be argued that - Personally - A further reason to 

1. THE FIRST THING TO CONSIDER is what the purpose of prison is. 

2. ONE JUSTIFICATION FOR harsh prison sentences is that they act as a deterrent. HOWEVER, there is very little evidence to support this claim. 

3. A FURTHER REASON TO justify putting people in prison is to keep them away from society. 

4. PERSONALLY, I believe that prison should aim to rehabilitate people and reform violent criminals so they are less likely to re-offend. 

5. IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT prison works mainly as a punishment. PERSONALLY overcrowded, cramped and sometimes violent conditions, prison is not a pleasant place to be. 

6. A FURTHER REASON TO prison may not do everything that we want it to do but it does serve as an unpleasant punishment.

Task 3 

Tick the three sentences that are more tentative. 

Prison sentences are more effective in 29 per cent of cases. 

It seems that prison sentences are more effective.     X

It might be argued that unpaid work exploits criminals.   X

Unpaid work exploits criminals. 

This may suggest that the criminal is not a danger to others.     X

These kinds of criminals are no danger to others.

                There are many arguments against death penalty. It's not a deterrent against the crimes that it punishes. Since societies who use the death penalty don't have lower crime rates than those that do. When a country abolishes the death penalty, they are not plunged into criminal chaos. But even if the death penalty did reduce crime rates, would it then be acceptable? The death penalty targets the economically disadvantaged. Those who cant afford good legal counsel, those without a voice in society. There's a saying in the U.S "capital punishment means that those without the capital get the punishment." Statistics show this is true but would it be acceptable if people from all sections of society were executed? Does killing a rich man make killing a poor man right? The death penalty is irreversible and results in the death of innocents. When someone is dead, a retrospective pardon is of little use to them or their family. Since 1990, in China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the USA, there have been 51 recorded executions of child offenders. Some as young as 14 years old. But even if no more innocents or children are killed should we tolerate the death penalty? The death penalty is never acceptable. It abuses two of our most basic human rights: everyone has the right to live, and no one should be subject to torture. The death penalty obviously kills people but it also tortures, physically by the brutal nature of execution and psychologically by forcing individuals to wait to be killed. They wait, sometimes for decades while others are led to their deaths. The horror of this waiting is unimaginable. Human rights are thus called 4 because they apply to all human beings. They belong to all of us equally. An attack on these fundamental rights anywhere is an attack against all of us. The right to life is inalienable, it can not be given and it can not be taken away. No matter how terrible crime, in a world full of uncertainty, human rights are a clearly drawn line; a line between what is right and what is wrong. The line between imprisonment and execution. Every individual facing the death penalty is, whatever they stand accused of, still a human being. However much we revile them, however much we are outraged by their actions, however much we want revenge, they are still human beings.