A 'Projected Grade' is an estimate of the final grade you might receive if the full essay is completed in the same style as the work assessed.
This highlight shows analysis of View A (Punishment).
This highlight shows analysis of View B (Rehabilitation).
This highlight shows your own Evaluation, where you weigh the views or make a judgment.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree more with Source B than Source A because Source B maintains an argument which thinks above the deterrence of crime. However Source A focuses on the protection of the public. In source B, it suggest locking people in jail becomes an endless cycle and the UK should focus on reformation. Additionally, it argues "justice and fairness must extend to creating a safer society long term". This is a good argument because they suggest a solution that will reduce crime rates. However they fail to consider how much of a deterrent rehabilitation will be. Although people often commit crimes due to their circumstances the age of responsibility is 7, meaning offenders even if one does receive rehabilitation, they can still make the active choice to reoffend. In addition to this punishment is there to deter people from committing crimes as a result of fearing the consequences. Alternatively, source A argues that imprisonment is the fundamental purpose of the justice system. It states that the punishment should reflect the severity of the offence. This is classed as retribution, which is essentially revenge for the victim. However one downside of this argument is fine as it considers the offender and victim however fails to shed light upon how crime can be deterred. As shown through the amount of people in jail, for me the law is no longer enforcing fear within offenders. Additionally, they fail to recognise the cost of prisons. Prisons cost millions of pounds to secure but also provide food for the prisoner. The problem is all this money is from tax payers. So you could argue it contradicts retribution as tax payers are paying for the comfort of prisoners. Essentially, I agree with source B as it focuses on the reformation of offenders, making offenders conscious about the impact of their actions, however fails to consider how a balance of protection and reformation can be made.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with both Source A and Source B's statements. However I agree more with Source B. I agree more with source B as I believe although they both have the public's best interests at heart Source B has a more impactful explanation and evidence. For example Source B states "simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society." I agree with this as I believe there are other alternatives to imprisonment such as electronic tagging. Some may disagree that electronic tagging is ineffective but I disagree as it takes away a sense of freedom as your every move is being monitored and limited each day which will motivate the offender to correct their behaviour to gain back the simple freedom everyone else around them may have. I also agree with source B arguing that "restorative justice can be a powerful tool, giving victims a voice and forcing offenders to confront the real-world impact of their actions." I believe restorative justice gives both the victims and offender the closure needed as you are faced with your actions and guilt which will push you to want to do better and have a sense of peace as the guilt will lessen and gives the offender the chance to redeem themselves of their past actions whilst answering or listening to the pain and inconvenience caused by them. This is why I agree with statement source B. On the other hand I agree with Source A as I believe that people that cause and offend should be held accountable. For example source A states "leniency and so-called 'soft options' undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims." I agree with this statement as I believe crimes should be met with severe punishments that help the offender reflect and go on a journey of self reflection. This also leads me to believe that source A has the publics best interest at heart when it states "the public rightly expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence; this is retribution." I heavily agree with this statement as I believe that people that rape or murder or carry out highly severe crimes shouldn't be excused with just a fine or community payback. I believe they should held fully accountable and serve time. I don't believe the victims of offenders should live in fear or not be served with justice as it is daunting. Overall I agree with both sources but mainly agree with Source B as although focus on punishment and retribution is important if wanting to maintain order effectively, I also think it's more important to address the causes and worries to prevent victims by reforming the individual and giving them a second chance at life as well as prison costing a high amount of money to maintain.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Despite source B focusing on "root problems" that may cause crime, I agree to an extent with source A focusing on the idea of punishing people who break the law. In source A it says it reflects on the idea of retribution - the idea that a criminal should be treated similarly to the crime they committed. I agree with this point as an offender which has experienced the consequences of the crime they committed gives them a sense of realisation creating an effective punishment leading to less re-offenders. Additionally, Source A talks about the idea of deterrence - punishments are set in place to deter and scare civilians to not commit crimes - is highly effective as in some states in the US where if you kill somebody the punishment is a death sentence. This is an effective judgement as if people realise the severe consequences of a punishment they are less likely to even consider breaking the law maintaining the idea of Justice and Fairness. However Source A also mentions the ineffectiveness of restorative justice as it says it is unfair on victims they are not pleased with no real punishment. Also, I know that an average prisoner costs up to £50,000 for 1 year to be held in prisoner. The problem with this they can use money like this to spend on more useful and urgent situations such as transportations or helping out countries like Ukraine needing military support. However, in source B it points out that to effectively stop crime we tackle it before it even happens which I agree with hugely. It says in order to do this we need to "invest[ing] in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders." Although this is a good idea investing in education so they are well educated in the effects of drugs or the hardship when losing a family member, this means they need to spend more money on these sectors it means taking money from others like transportation or agriculture. To conclude, I still agree with source B as their ideas on harsh punishment can deter civilians from crime and the idea of retribution can also give criminals a sense of worry as they don't want to lose freedom and liberty.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Despite, Source A being explaining lots of strong points on the purpose of the justice system and how victims may seek peace, knowing that the people who'd harmed them would no longer be in society anymore, I agree more with Source B as it truly expresses the main points and key reasons why the justice system was actually set up for, rehabilitation. One reason I agree with Source B is because it states that an "effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime". This is an amazing point as we know that the majority of criminals and crime come from reoffenders who may have not gotten the best opportunity to actually change their behaviour to become more beneficial to society. One way this can be done is to implement "community sentence[s]" more as it can give an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work whilst it not only making them more useful to society, this may also change the way an offender may view the world, leading them to a much more safe society. Another excellent point the source brings up is how flawed the current prison system is. I know that it costs around £40,000-£50,000 to maintain the living and livelihood of prisoners which is not only really expensive, it just isn't worth it for the long-term. This money should be used to "invest[ing] in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders" in order to actually further prevent the chance of an offender to reoffend, but also people in society to commit crime. Another great point this source introduces is that "restorative justice" is effective in giving an offender a chance for forgiveness made with their victim which not only makes them feel better, but it also gives a perspective on how their possible further actions may harm even more people if they don't stop, leading to lower reoffending rates. However, in Source A, I think that a lot of arguments are flawed, but some may agree as it states that "leniency and so-called soft options undermine public trust". Although this point may be true, it still fails to understand that leniency is not really a real thing as the process of how an offender is sentenced is decided by a jury (democratic) and a magistrate, who are completely impartial, so they hold no bias whatsoever. Therefore, it proves that "an offender [who] knows that their action may lead to a significant loss of freedom they are less likely to offend," is a very wrong and weak argument.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Source A's argument is that the justice system should focus on punishment and retribution. Source A argues that if the justice system becomes less lenient and gives longer sentences it would send a message to others, making communities safer. This is a strong point because I know that in other countries that are less lenient and does use mitigating factors and gives out long sentences no matter what the crime rate is lower. However Source B argues that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. Source B says that a community service can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work, which is cheaper than a prison sentence and allows the individuals that commit crime to address their actions. However this point is not strong due to the fact that forcing people to do unpaid work is essentially just modern-day slavery and it goes against their human rights. Source A also argues that restorative justice places an unfair burden on the victims as they have to engage with the person that harmed them. This is also a very strong point as forcing a victim to interact with the person that harmed them will only create more trauma for the victim and this method is likely to fail. However on the other hand Source B argues against this and says that restorative justice can be a powerful tool which gives victims a voice to address the criminals behaviour that forces them to rethink their actions. This point is strong because restorative justice allows a victim to question the offender and allows the victims to be at peace, which they cannot do in a court or if the offender is in prison. In conclusion I believe that Source A presents the strongest points in this argument due to the fact that Source B is highly dependant on a small group of offenders while Source A shows that more punishment would affect the entire community by lowering the overall crime rate.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Initially, I agree more with writer 2 (source B) because I feel that writer 1, source A, doesn't include significant facts or statistics to back up their argument points, as well as ignoring the effect on offenders from harsh prison sentences. Firstly, we learn from writer 2 that, "locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society". This is a significant point as it focuses on how prisoners who eventually get released may continue to re-offend due to no rehabilitation work done. Additionally, we learn that, "The core concept of Justice and Fairness must extend to creating a safer society in the long term" which can only be achieved by reducing the number of people who reoffend "through the means of investing in education, mental health support, and addiction support for offenders". This is a very strong point as it links to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which changed the approach of retribution to young offender rehabilitation, especially due to mitigating factors like difficult childhoods. From writer 2, we do learn some useful information, like, "community sentences fail to work". This is partially true as of 2018 where the UK had a prisoner population of 80000 (146 every 100,000 people), however, this forgets the fact that harsh prison sentences without rehabilitation can make the offender more resentful, and likely to reoffend on release. Additionally, from writer 1 we are told that, "if an offender knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend", meaning that ONLY retribution-punishment sentences work to stop crime. However, this is a weak point as it disregards the FACTS that criminal numbers are growing, and the UK has the highest re-offending rates in Europe, so deterrence-based-sentences don't work. Overall, I agree more with writer 2, because they address the solutions to forgetting the root cause of criminal behaviour, which rehabilitates and deters future reoffenders by solving unruly behaviour at an early stage of life, creating a safer, harmonious society in the long term. Whereas, writer 1 forgets the negative effects retribution sentences have on offenders behaviour, preventing a safer society.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Source B this is because if you place criminals in a cell you might be protecting society but they won't change as a person your just holding them captive and they haven't learnt anything nor gained anything. For that and in some cases when they get out of prison they will reoffend again having not learnt their lesson and failing our society. The core concept of justice and fairness must extend to creating a safer society in the long term, which can only be achieved by reducing the number of people who reoffend this means investing in education, mental health treatment, and addiction support for offenders. If people who committed crimes do community sentence they firstly learn work experience leaving them with key knowledge for when they leave prison and hopefully work, secondly they can go to programmes that address their behaviour possibly changing how they think and their mindset for the better causing another person to become a reformed individual. I believe even though punishment has a role a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime, hopefully turning a criminal into an example of a perfect citizen. However I also agree with opposing source (Source A) this is because although I think community sentences would help transform some people into better, renewed and intelligent people of society. There are also some criminals that have committed very extravagant and merciless crimes for example murder, rape etc and I think for peoples safety they should be locked up to ensure a sense of justice and fairness for victims and society as a whole. When a serious crime is committed for the sake of the victims and family they deserve a long prison sentence for causing emotional and physical distress which can get compensated for. Long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. Stopping crime for being normalised, despite that I still agree with Source B.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree more with Source B as it gives strong points and supports it with clear and well explained evidence. On the other hand, source A gives valid points but they are weak. My first point is that I agree with Source B about how the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. For example, Source B mentions how community service is a way an individual can pay society back, I agree with this point. Furthermore, a first-time offender on a not so major crime doesn't deserve time in prison, making community service a much better punishment. This is a strong point as source B takes into account mitigating factors for an offender. On the other hand Source A says that community sentences often fail and a way to let people off lightly. This is a weak point as source A fails to mention how minor crimes like first-time theft does not deserve prison time as they do not have a great impact on society nor a danger. Another good point source B gives one is why the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform is that it says 'we must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle root causes of crime'. This is a strong point as I know from my own knowledge that the UK has the highest reoffending rates in Europe. This means that helping offenders with rehab programs will decrease crime rates. Not only this but in doing so we tackle the problem of youth and children being influenced by crime. On the other hand, source A gives a weak point as it says that the focus should be on punishment. This is a weak point as it doesn't take into account youth offenders or accidental crimes. Not everyone should be punished severly. In conclusion I agree more with Source B and that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform as it gives strong points and takes in account of justice and fairness not only punishment unlike source a.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Source B because most because it tackle the main roots of the crime and the punishment changes their behavioural issues to make our society better again. The UK loves the justice system because only a little amount of people reoffend. This means investing in education, mental health treatment has support for the offenders. Furthermore, Source B states that there is hope in criminals and the rehabilitation could change criminals act and become a better person. Such as when the source says "to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens". This means that the criminals are supposed to not reoffend in the program. On the other hand Source A is more of a harsher route because in my opinion people that commit crime should be cared for because they are human at the end of the day. But Source A states there shouldn't be "soft options" and should have a tough prison sentences to change their behaviour.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with the content of Source B, as she states different ways to serve a sentence or punishment rather than automatically putting people in prison. For example, she mentions community sentence which is beneficial for first time offenors and also talks about restorative justice which is used for younger offenders. And being able to talk to those they have done wrong which can help them rethink their choices and can help an offender stay out of prison knowing they have done damage. Source A believes every crime committed the individual should go to prison. A problem with this is that prisons don't always have enough space and should always put their time in for those with serious sentencings. Prisons also might not be able to provide for everyone for example, not enough food or bedding. This shows that prisons should only be used for serious offences like murder. However I also agree with Source B when she talks about keeping the community safe and how people reoffend. Although it can prevent harm for others, putting people in prison weigh up mitigating factors including the seriousness of a crime, the offenders age, criminal records the level of harm to a victim and whether they pleaded guilty. However Source B makes good points for example people reoffending and putting people in prison can prevent that also keeping the community safer. In conclusion, there are different ways to reduce crime and keeping people safe for example increasing police, educating young children so it is less attractive.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Source B the most because it gives clear alternatives for sentencing or imprisonment. Source A lacks to build on its point and doesn't give evidence to back up its points. For example, Source A states 'this ensures a sense of justice and fairness for victims and society as a whole' but fails to realise that other alternatives that source B mentioned can also ensure a sense of justice but also cohesion in communities. For example community payback where an offender does a certain amount of work within the community to give back and to demonstrate how they have changed or rehabilitated. Furthermore I agree most with source B because they are able to give clear examples to back up their point. For example, they state that justice and fairness can only really be achieved by reducing the number of people who reoffend. They continue to make this evidence by 'investing in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders'. Source B could've also stated that investing in education gives opportunities to young people by making crime look committing is less attractive. Source A doesn't understand that perpetrators need to face their consequences and those who were hurt or their rights were breached such as having privacy. They fail to realise having an interaction with the victim may make the perpetrator sympathetic. They fail to mention it could even be the other way round and that those who were harmed could even feel sympathetic for the victim as they may have explained their reasons as to why they committed such crime. Source B also claims 'a system based on punishment is not only fair, it is the most effective way of maintaining order' but hasn't exhausted all the possible alternatives for sentencing.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Although source A raises important and ethical concerns about punishment and argues about how imprisonment is the best way to serve justice, I mostly agree with Source B because they take into the consideration of advantages and disadvantages of rehabilitation and reform. One reason why I agree more with source B is because they realise that a truly effective justice system is one which tackles the "root causes of crime". This is a powerful argument because they have successfully realised that if you get rid of the cause, the re-offender is highly less likely to commite the same crime as before by reoffending. For example the use of a restorative justice sentence allows someone convicted of a crime to meet with the victim and solve the initial issue of why they commited the crime in the first place which is a more civil way of solving disputes. Source B also presents the idea of "community service" which I believe is a very strong argument because it allows someone convicted of a crime to live in their community but under a set of legally binding rules. Some restrictions include being banned from certain areas and a strict curfew which is ensured using an electric tag. This ensures that the offender can live their life whilst avoiding prison and also keeps them under strict circumstances to ensure the safety of the community. On the other hand source A presents the argument that the justice system should be more focused on punishment and retribution. I believe that this point is weak because it ignores potential for positive change. By courts administering an absolute discharge, they ignore the possibility that perhaps the offender can change. In conclusion, although Source A argues that punishment such as prison are the most important way to sentence offenders as they protect the public, I mostly believe that source B who argues that rehabilitation and reform is the better argument because not only does it save money, it gives offenders a chance to change for the better.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Source B the most as although A makes good points on why the Justice System should be focused more punishment, Source B has a stronger argument as rehabilitation will help society in the long run. Firstly, Source B says that "Simply locking people in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour" which is true as many criminal reoffend after leaving prison. This can be due to their criminal record making it harder for them to get a secure job which may push them back to crime to survive or they may not have the skills or qualification to get a job. For example many prisoners are illiterate. Making the justice system focus on rehabilitation like Source B says would help fix these issues as it can allow offenders to learn these skills which can help them get back to being helpful members of society. On the other hand Source A says "long tough prison sentence send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated, making our communities safer," and say the primary goal must be to deter potential criminals. However what this source may not see is a weakness to this argument is that many are forced into a life of crime by things like poverty or addiction making these offenders not the main ones at fault. Another reason I agree with Source B more is because it mentions how "restorative justice can be a power tool". I know it is a strong tool as it may keep the victims at peace and leave the offender with a new point of view and make them regret their action making them less likely to reoffend. Source B's idea of rehabilitation is also good as if there was more rehab or reform it may leave tax-payers angry as prison cost many however they don't produce people who are ready to integrate back into society.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Source A argues that the justice system should focus on "punishment and retribution". The source goes on to say when a crime is committed the public should expect a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence and that leniency undermines public trust and devalues the suffering of victims. This point is very plausible as there have been several cases where offenders recieve so called 'soft options'. Another point made by Source A is that schemes like restorative justice are an unfair burden on victims. If an offender knows their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, that they would be less likely to reoffend which is one of the aims of imprisonment (to deter). I agree with Source A again on this as we have a responsibility to protect the public. However, Source B opposes Source A and believes the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. They go on to prove the current approach of the justice system isn't working as the UK has one of the highest re-offending rates in Europe. Source B then provides viable alternatives to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens through community sentences which force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work. This is a far more effective and significantly cheaper than a short prison sentence and is genuinely pertinent to an offender's rehabilitation. The source is then ended by saying that an effective justice system doesnt just punish the crime, it addresses the causes. This works to prevent further victims by reforming the individual.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Firstly, I agree more with source B due to its more persuasive arguement on the core reasons we should focus on rehabilitation and reform. However Source A holds a strong arguement as to why we should focus on punishment and retribution. On one hand, Source B makes a strong point that the justice system 'must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime' as locking them up clearly isnt effective enough due to the UK having one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. This is strong as if we can help understand why this person done what they did we can help them avoid doing this again and decrease the chance of them reoffending. However, although this is a strong point it fails to mention the fact that some people may not be curable and the people who have commited crimes will find it hard to find a job as employers don't want criminals working for them - which could lead to them reoffending to get the essentials. Source B makes another strong arguement about 'restorative justice' and how it can be a strong tool that gives the victims a voice to confront the offendor. On the other hand, Source A mentions a valid point that if offenders are given a harsh sentence it can help show them that commiting crimes can result in a significant loss of freedom and they are less likely to reoffend. However, this fails to mention the reason they had commited this crime, maybe they had no other choice to help feed their families. Source A makes another strong point when it says that prison helps show that these actions will not be tolerated, however it doesnt mention holding people in prison cost's money and if their crime isnt that serious the government is wasting money on holding them in prison. Overall, I agree more with Source B as it includes more persuasive information on how we should focus our justic system on.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with writer B more. This is for numerous amount of reasons. One reason is because he states that 'Rehabilitating offenders is highly cheaper than short prison sentences'. This point is strong highlighting that community sentence can actually help not just the offender for skills but help the area/enviroment. For example if a offender was to commit a crime and get a community sentence by picking up litter for the local area this would benefit the enviroment whereas if he were to go to prison it would be pointless and a waste of money and theres a likely chance of recommiting a crime. Writer A however still puts up a valid argument by saying that imprisoning dangerous individuals can protect the public from more harm. This point is extremely strong since locking up dangerous people can create a more safer enviroment. however what he has forgot to mention is that imprisoning dangerous people is only a temporary effect, not a permanent. This means that when they are to exit prison they are most likely going to commit another crime that is why the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in the entirety of Europe. What writer A has also pointed out is that tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime is not tolerated. This point is strong however what he has forgot to mention is that this will not help them for after they get released from prison this makes deprivation/homeless rates higher. Whereas what writer B has mentioned is that they can invest in education, mental health, treatment and addiction support for offenders. This point is strong due to them being able to instead pay money on punishment and they would most likely reoffend thus causing a endless cycle. But instead pay money on rehabilitation or education, however what this point has not highlighted is that they can still reoffend by not taking in the education recieved.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I primarily agree with Source B to a much large extent than Source A. This is due to fact that Source B explains how a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation. I also know that is something that the justice system should primely focus on as in reality a significant amount of people who find themselfs in jail are likely to reoffend. Additionally, this Source A talks about how the core concept of justice and fairness is about creating a safer society, which I expect, but this ignores social issues such as poverty, abuse etc. Source A also still holds a lot of validity with its argument, mentioning how leniency could potentially undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims, which is certainly true in the case of violent crime such as assault. Furthermore the idea of a long prison sentence also helps act towards the idea of deterrence of crime due to the inhibition of freedom. Despite this however, this source fails to mention the significant issue faced by reoffenders. It doesn't refer to the social issues present that will likely lead to many former offenders reoffending due to limited stability or assistance to help them. Source A also mentions the ideas about restorative justice and how it may place an unfair burden on victims by making them engage with whoever has harmed them. The source also illustrates the ideas about how community sentences may be a way that "lets off offenders lightly", which may be true to a certain degree. In Source B, they describe restorative system as a way to give victims a voice and address the reason offenders may offend. They also describe community service as a great way to address the offender's behaviour. This is a good point as it helps demonstrate how crime is often best treated by giving offenders support. To conclude, I primarily agree with SB as whilst retribution is an extent, ultimately reformation is what will ultimately create a safer, stable society.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Both Source A and Source B talk about the issue of ways to sentence offenders. Both Source A and source B make good points, however I agree to a certain extent with source A due as its crucial to exercise the role of power and authority. Source A argues that "restorative justice place is an unfair burden" on victims to engage with the person who harmed them. What source A wasn't thought about is the criminal itself. There could be some scenarios where the criminal would genuinely try to look and make a change or have a new relationship with someone they affected because of their crime. However I certainly agree that leniency and so-called soft options undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims. I agree because this easily shows us that perhaps the government or judge might not care about the victim and just only having thought for the criminal itself. What this source has thought about is the emotions the people may feel - grief and pain wanting nothing but justice. Source B argues that keeping people in prison does "little change to their behaviour and fails our society." What Source B hasn't thought about is the criminals themselves. If they wanted to live a life and be free they wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place. To evaluate this point I would argue this doesn't make sense as earlier in Source B we, UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. My argument is why should we make prisoners work to help rebuild their life if they are just going to commit the crime again. In conclusion I agree with Source B more because I believe it is right all victims achieve justice and fairness and long tough prison sentences send a dear message that crimes will not be tolerated, making the community safer.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree most with source B, which says the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. This is because simply punishing offenders as source A suggest, does not stop reoffending or make society safer in the long term. Helping people change their behaviour through education, treatment, and community work tackles the real causes of crime, such as addiction and lack of opportunity. For example, if reoffenders are given support to find jobs or overcome problems, they are less likely to commit crimes again. This benefits society as it would reduce the number of victims and it would build a safer society. While punishment is still necessary, rehabilitation is more effective for preventing crime in the future. I disagree with source A because it focuses excessively on punishment and retribution rather than actually reducing crime effectively. Punishing the offender might make victims feel justice has been served, but it doesn't help reoffenders change their behaviour or stop them from committing more crimes in the future. If offenders are only imprisoned without support, they often reoffend after being released, which doesn't make society safer. Source A also ignores the reasons why people commit crimes, such as poverty, addiction to drugs, or lack of education. Without dealing with these issues, punishment alone will not solve the problem of trying to reduce crime. In conclusion, I disagree with source A because focusing only on punishment does not effectively reduce crime or make society safer. While punishment can only show that justice has been served, it does not deal with the reasons why people reoffend - whereas Source B focuses on rehabilitation which is a fair and effective system that aims to reform individuals and help them change their behaviour, which benefits both society and victims preventing future crimes from being committed.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with scource A the most because there is a lot of evidence and effect. For example, Scource A says that "Long, tough prison senteces send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated." Here the writer says his point and then follows it up by "... making our communities safer.". This shows the effect of long prison sentences. In addition to this scource A talks about restorative justice and how that can be uncomfortable for the victim. This is a strong point as the writer of scource A refers to us that forcing "uncomfortable meetings" is an "unfair burden" on victims. Lastly, another strong argument Scource A made is the use of community service. Although Scource B makes a strong argument, Scource B could make their argument stronger if they included the effect of the evidence they provided. For example, Scource B includes that "community assistance can force an individual to pay back society through unpaid work." Even though this is a good point, Scource B fails to include the effect of community service which dulls their argument. In conclusion due to Scource A input of evidence and effect I agree with them more.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Source B the most as it gives us a clear reasoning as on why the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. In the source it states rehabilitation could tackle the relevant cause of crimes. I wholeheartedly agree with this. If an offender is sent to rehab it could stop them from also reoffending. Locking up people in prisons also could do little to no change in their behaviour and also fail our society. Introducing rehabilitation could bring down the UK's one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. The Source B states they should invest in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders. This could improve offenders negative thoughts. Addiction support could help offenders whom use drugs. Source A could also differ from this as its main focus is on punishment and retribution. In source A the purpose is to punish those who break the laws. It says "the public expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offense know as retribution". They set tough prison sentences set a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. This won't help a prisoner not commit crimes. In conclusion, I agree with source B more than source A as it changes the views of prisoners.