IELTS Essay # 287 - Fixed punishments for each type of crime
- Last Updated: Tuesday, 02 August 2022 08:22
- Written by IELTS Mentor
- Hits: 275361
IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Write about the following topic:
Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
You should write at least 250 words.
Sample Answer 1:
Some people argue whether criminals should always be subject to fixed punishment for certain crimes or situations for committing the crime should be taken into account before inflicting punishment. This essay will examine both sides of the argument, but I am personally inclined to the latter view that suggests considering circumstances of a crime while sentencing someone.
On the one hand, criminal activities have reduced significantly over the centuries in the history of humankind. Fixed punishments like the death penalty, life imprisonment for drug trafficking deter an offender from such heinous crimes. The ruthlessness of such harsh punishments ensured safety and security in society. For instance, according to a publication on criminal justice from the C.I.A, many middle countries have been consistently ranking near top regarding achieving a low-crime index due to their aggressive law for enforcing fixed punishments for designated crimes. Nevertheless, the main objective of the law and order is to protect the innocents and punish the wrongdoers. The fixed punishment often contradicts with the fundamental objective of civil society.
On the other hand, persecuting a convict violate human rights; often without considering the aspects leading to such crime. Consider Saudi Arabia, ranked as the country with the lowest crime index in the world. The state’s implementation of a strict fundamentalist approach to persecute criminals regardless of the circumstances of the crime has drawn flak from many human rights organisations. Amnesty International reported that fair trials are prohibited to criminals even if they are wrongly convicted. Finally, in my opinion, a convicted person should be given punishment only based on the circumstances and severity of the crime. For example, if someone murders in the act of self-defence, the verdict given should not amount to life-sentence.
In conclusion, I believe that both groups of the argument, for and against the fixed punishments, have their reasons. However, I think that penalties should be decided according to variant circumstances of criminals and keeping in mind that the aim of punishment to prevent further crimes to happen.
[Written by - Saad Yaseen]
Sample Answer 2:
Have you ever thought about being a judge? There may be various situations in our daily lives in which our judgments are needed to be expressed. But is it really as simple as the situations we encounter every day when it comes to judging serious crimes? For a long time, it has been a controversial issue whether there must be fixed punishments for any kind of crime or the incentive is an influential factor that is crucial to be considered. I personally approve of the latter belief since there are a lot of crimes in which the criminal is not really guilty.
On the one hand, a group of people dogmatically believe the punishment for any crime ought to be fixed regardless of the crime’s motive. They state that if felons know there is severe punishment even for small crimes, they are hindered and will never attempt to commit a crime. Therefore, the violence and crime rates decline considerably and thus a better society we will have. For instance, in Saudi Arabia, the punishment for robbery is of one the robber’s hands being cut irrespective of what he has stolen, an apple or a car.
On the other hand, the other group of society argues that where the felony stems from must be investigated and the motivation should be taken into consideration when sentencing a criminal. As a justification, they cite that there are situations in which the crime has not been done deliberately or the culprit is not the real wrongdoer. In particular, in an involuntary homicide, the killer might be the victim since it might have self-defence or a robbery for feeding a family differs from robbing for profit. In this case, the judge is who can decide the best penalty considering every aspect and condition of crime perpetration.
On the whole, even though fixed punishments can be extremely beneficial in the decrease of crime rate and may culminate in a safer society, the justice system should be flexible enough towards certain felonies and consider the crime’s rationale and conditions for giving the most appropriate verdict.
(by - Davoud Naserbakht)
Sample Answer 3:
In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of crimes being committed. Many people are of the opinion that these wrong-doings should be classified categorically. However, I believe that each offence should be looked upon in a subjective manner, taking into account the nature and severity of these unlawful activities.
Giving a fixed punishment would definitely make court proceedings a lot quicker. This is because the judges would not need to decide what type of punishment criminals would deserve as it would have been already decided for them. However, this is an unfair practice as some of the criminals may not deserve the punishments given to them. For example, a person robbing a convenient store will not deserve the same punishment as a person robbing a bank because the degree of the crime is not as severe as the latter.
On the other hand, deciding a crime according to the situation and motive of it makes perfect sense as it would ensure that the lawbreaker is given a fair trial and the right punishment is handed down to him. For instance, a mentally ill person who commits a murder would be judged accordingly, instead of being grouped into the same category of all the other type of murderers. This, therefore, will make the trial balance and fair.
In conclusion, my opinion is that the punishment for a crime should be made up based on all the factors leading up to the unlawful action rather than providing judgement based on the classification of crimes into types.
(by - Rupert Lyngdoh)
Sample Answer 4:
In recent days, there is an ongoing debate on how to give appropriate punishment toward people who accused with criminal activities. Some state that they should be punished by looking at the type of crime they have committed, while some people believe that the circumstance and reason of committing a crime should be given a high priority while accusing someone of the crime. However, I personally argue that these ideas are definitely true and through this essay, I will support these views with some considerations below.
Nowadays, the fact shows that there are some cases given injustice punishment toward a criminal. For instance, a grandmother stole three chocolates last year and she had to spend times in prison for several years. In contrast of the corruptors stealing plenty of money from society but punished only a year and completed by good service from the police. In short, the law of government should review and rearrange the constitution when deciding on the punishment. They should think of the punishment types as the consideration of the punishment decision.
Turning to the other arguments, the government also should pay attention to the reason why people have committed criminalities. For example, there are some cases which show the most reason for committing a crime are economic problems. A lot of people have no job thus they prefer to do misconduct to fulfil their daily need. The most obvious solution is by taking the motivation of criminals as an essential consideration in giving punishment.
As a result, I truly believe that these ideas are an essential consideration that can encounter social justice.
(by - Tuty starlet )
Sample Answer 5:
To date, we have thousands of laws, regulations, general rules enumerated to ensure our society functions as it should be. However, these restrictions could never be enough to cover every circumstance that happened around-the-clock. Therefore, should the law be our gospel for us to follow strictly without deviation? Or should we perceive each case as an individual and take multiple factors into considerations? My opinion is definitely on the latter.
For people who value law as an impregnable principle, the law itself would surpass human judgments. Humanity could be a defection when coming to talk about righteousness. Sentiments and bias might get in the way and eventually lead to miscalculation and unjustness, resulting in man-made errors, a horrendous failure for justice.
Despite the fact that human error is almost inevitable, people still believe taking certain factors into consideration is genuinely legitimate. Laws are considered the most basic requirement of human morality, making it the reason why this issue has become controversial. People might have broken the law yet the motivation behind such a deed could alter our interpretation to it. The main character in the Opera “Les miserable” stole a loaf of bread because he was almost starved to death; a young heroin addict pickpocketed a wallet to cater to his cravings. These two cases above are both thieveries, yet the morality standard was hardly even. Our cognition helps us reconsider and adjust our decisions and prevent us from nonchalantly putting the same amount of punishment on these two men without pondering over some more congruous solution.
The law could be the guidance, a foundation of our ethical standards. Nevertheless, we still have to make room for flexibilities and consider every crime as an individual.
[ by - Chen Emma ]
Sample Answer 6:
There is a controversial fact that whether there should be fixed punishments for crimes or the factors that might lead the crime should be taken into consideration, while penalties for crimes are detected. In my opinion, to decide justice both of them are required. The circumstances brought about the crime should play a role to slight the penalty or deteriorate the punishment.
Some people believe that each crime should be performed as a specific punishment that serves to implement justice in a society. In this practice, each person who did the same crime is punished as a standard punishment. For instance, the penalty of forgery is a standard for every person. Every thief, child or adult does not matter, is convicted in the same way.
On the other hand, another group of people think that each occasion related to crime is different from one another. Because psychology and position of guilty, environmental factors and reasons and results of the crime affect the damage of the crime on people or society. Accordingly, such mentioned factors should be detectable on the level of punishment. For instance, if a person causes a traffic accident by a mistake, his position, his regret and his emotional situation should be evaluated, when the penalty is assigned.
I personally think that each crime should be assessed specifically and fixed crimes detected beforehand should be able to extend or lessen. Thanks to that, the intentions lied down behind the crime could be thought while deciding the crime of a guilty. Otherwise, thieving a piece of bread because of hungry will have the same position with a theft who stole many pieces of bread to sell in another place to earn money.
[ by - Gokan ]
Sample Answer 7:
In today's modern world, we are constantly bombarded with the issue of crime which has recently increased at an alarming rate in newspapers. Some people, therefore, are of the opinion that all kinds of crime should have its own punishment which is legislated by the government. However, there are a handful of people who assert that some background reasons, which cause the criminals to commit crimes, should be included in the procedure of deciding on the punishment. Hence, we will examine both sides of the argument before reaching a reasonable conclusion.
A fixed punishment for each type of crime is necessary due to several reasons. To begin, it allows every criminal to be treated fairly for every crime. It is important to ensure no one will be discriminated or get offended by the public. In addition, there will not be any unsatisfactory between the criminals who committed the same kind of crime when they are sentenced to jail. Furthermore, a fixed punishment plays an indispensable role in giving a deterrent in turning the would-be offenders. To illustrate, a serious punishment will be incurred to those who commit crimes like murders will definitely deter and cause would-be offenders to change their minds before committing a crime.
On the other hand, it is vital to take into account the reasons why criminals commit crimes. First of all, many of them, especially teenagers who are more vulnerable to those feelings of loneliness are more easily influenced by their peers. They do not have mature thinking and are not being aware of the possible negative impacts of committing crimes. According to recent research conducted in Columbia, the statistic has shown that about 58% of the youngsters got affected by their badly behaved friends when got caught to involve in crimes. It is also believed by the public that many criminals have the lackings of parental love which eventually causes them to behave violently and aggressively. They, therefore, involve committing crimes including robberies and murders to show how powerful they are.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that every jury should make their decisions on punishments by considering the reasons why they commit crimes. Our nation will surely continue to prosper and flourish in the decades to come once the crime rates are successfully reduced.
[ by - Lee Wing Queen ]
Sample Answer 8:
Many people debate on what should be done about punishment on criminals. Some individuals believe that there should be standard punishment for every kind of crime and that should be followed while sentencing a criminal. Yet, some others argue that reasons for crime and background of executing crime should be considered while determining proper punishment for criminals. This essay will take a look at this issue from both points of views.
To begin with, people may agree to impose fixed standard punishment on criminals based on the crime they committed. By doing this, criminals will be punished according to the crime they made and it seems fair for everyone since they believe the bigger the crime, the harder the prison. For example, imposing the death penalty to both murderer and terrorist who have committed to the same type of crime seems reasonable to many people. It is a considerably equal crime and therefore, they should be punished by death sentence. When someone kills a person, no matter what was the reason, s/he should be punished according to the predetermined laws.
On the other hand, others argue that in determining the proper punishment for criminals, there should be some considerations of what were the motives of crime and also the background of criminals. There must be different punishment between a serial killer and someone who was forced to kill for self-defending. Applying same punishment to the woman who stole a loaf of bread from a store to feed her hungry baby and a corrupt government employee who stole millions of dollar to amass his wealth is not at all justified though stealing was the crime in both cases.
All in all, fixed punishment is needed to standardise punishment for different crimes. Nonetheless, there should be some considerations on the motives and environment of criminals in imposing the proper punishment.
[ by - Linda ]
On the one hand, severe fixed punishments like the death penalty, life imprisonment and so on deter offenders from committing heinous crimes. The ruthlessness of such harsh punishments ensures safety and security in society. For instance, according to a publication on criminal justice from the C.I.A, some countries have been consistently maintaining a low-crime index due to their aggressive law for enforcing fixed punishments for designated crimes like rapes, murder, human trafficking and drug business. From this regard, a fixed punishment is often seen as useful and effective by many.
On the contrary, the main objective of the law is to protect the innocents and punish the wrongdoers, not the other way around. Fixed punishment often contradicts with the fundamental objectives of civil society and that is why understanding the motivation behind a felony and the consideration of the condition of an individual criminal are essential. For instance, when a poor man steals food to provide it for his family, it is stealing, which is quite different than someone involved in organised crime of cutting and stealing trees from the forest for personal benefits. If a fixed punishment is given to both of these two persons, it would simply be outrageous and that would go against the norm of laws and orders.
In conclusion, I believe that both groups of the argument, for and against the fixed punishments, have their reasons. However, I think that penalties should be decided according to variant conditions of criminals and keeping in mind that the aim of punishment to prevent further crimes to happen.