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.
code Code download content_copy expand_lessThis 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 with Source B this is because Source B makes several strong points. For example, "A truly effective justice system must prioritize rehabilitation to tackle the root cause of crime." The reason I believe this is a good point is because if the root of something isn't taken care of it's more likely to happen again. Secondly another strong point from source B would be "Simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society." The UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. Source B not only states why locking people up without providing enough rehabilitation is bad but it provides a strong piece of evidence for why. However Source A makes the point that "restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them." Even though this is a valid point it fail's to mention how if a victim wanted to meet whoever may be responsible for their suffering it is completely optional and not something they are forced to do. Source A also mentions how when a crime is committed "the public rightly expect a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence." Even though this statement may hold some weight it neglect's the fact that different people may have different views. For example someone might think that rape is more serious than manslaughter whereas someone might think manslaughter is more serious than rape. In conclusion, Source B is a more effective method of saving the country cost but it also gives offenders a chance to earn possible qualifications for when they are released back into society.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with the writer of Source (A) more. This is because he is able to talk in depth about how crimes should be solved and how offenders could be stopped. He also says that putting serious offenders into prison is part of and ensures sense of justice and fairness for victims of society. However he then goes on to talk about how a long, tough prison sentence sends a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. This is inaccurate as people who have been to prison have come out and yet again committed the same crime. He also fails to explain how innocent people are affected by these consequences and punishments. The writer of Source (B) talkes about how the responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens who will not commit the same crime again. He also says that investing in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders can help them stop the crimes they commit and that it is a fact of justice and fairness. This is partly true because some crimes from people are due for a verbal condition because they might have been brought up wrong. However most crimes are committed intentionally. In conclusion, writer A is able to explain in detail his point and why offenders should be placed in prison to prevent innocent victims from getting affected.
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 by reform people who has done crime or be at least part of the arrest. A source statement that just has gone to prison for the crime they committed will not help. This is because people will continue this stack of crime unless people that is police don't deal with the source to it. The concept of justice and fairness is to give people a second chance in society. Long term this would reduce the count of reoffend. Such as if a crime is to be broke which effect the community, they should pay it back for community. This will give the prisoner a sense of responsibility for the justice system. Give victims a voice and force the offender to accept what he did was wrong so justice does not just punishment help reform prisoner to join society again. However I also agree Source A this is because the law system was made to punishment offenders ensuring people feeling save in there community.
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 to a large extent on the effective way to sentence offenders. Source B argues that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. This means that they can tackle the root causes of crime and decrease re-offenders. An advantage to this arguement is that source B focuses on re-building society as a whole if they begin tackling root problems like theft. I know this is true as currently the UK has around 44% re-offend rate when it comes to 'tacklable' crimes which just validates source B's arguement. Furthermore, source B also mentions how achieving "justice and fairness" can be achieved by 'reducing the number of re-offenders.' A strength in this arguement will make people feel safer and allow prisons the government to not put peoples taxes on extra jail cells. I know that this is true as in America prisons implement education and mental health treatments for prisoners which decreases re-offend rates to 20% from 50%. Despite having a strength in this arguement, you could argue that a weakness is that you can't force prisoners towards education without their will. On the other hand, you could argue that source A's arguement is more valid as the most effective way to sentence offenders is implementing punishment and retribution even more. For example, one of source A's arguement is that "the public rightly expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence." Despite both sources agreeing with this concept/logic, source A forgot to mention how every punishment has a limit, even though series crimes are "death" worthy, people still have a right to life. In conclusion, despite both sources having strong arguements towards the effective method on to sentence offenders as both care towards the public' safety, source B contains fewer flaws into their arguement. For example, source B argues about how a community sentence allows offenders to re-pay society and the suffering victims, which is a strong arguement, whereas source A believes that offenders will re-offend which is wrong to an extent as it allows offenders to feel guilty and to not re-offend. Therefore, I agree to source B's arguement despite evaluating both sides.
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 more than I do with Source A. This is because I'm not inclined to agree with source B due to reflects to issue the opinion doesn't regard how crime should be solved and believing that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. However in source B core good points are given such as how community sentences after jail work and how a bigger burden is put onto the victim when restorative justice is put into place with an overall view of how the justice system should focus on rehabilitated and reform. In source A the writer argues how retribution is a factor as when a serious crime is committed, the public expects a sentence that reflects the 'offence'. For example if a criminal were to commit the crime it should be relative to the punishment they receive potentially decreasing the likelihood of them to reoffend. This is the most effective way of maintaining order. However on the other hand people may have reasons they have committed the crime which could need not committing the crime because they want to but are because they need to. I believe mitigating factors are crucial to our justice system and to not understand why a crime has been committed but to instead disregard the reason the crime has been committed is 'lawless' and unfair. In source B I believe there are stronger points with more evidence which include the argument of how an effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime. For example instead of people who may be first time offenders or may potentially have mitigating factors (i.e. have children to look after etc) it would be more effective to tax and change the offender into being a law abiding citizen. This is evident as statistics show 54% of people who took rehabilitation courses become law abiding citizens which is a key responsibility of the justice system. In conclusion I agree more with Source B when evaluating both sources and their points because the overall goal is to have people who reoffend be dramatically less from people who took rehabilitation instead of going to prison. Another positive of rehabilitation is that it means investing in education, mental health and addiction support for offenders instead of paying an annual fee of £50,000 for each inmate in jail which is not only tax payers money but also a huge sum of money from the economy.
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 due to the reason that they have good ways of punishing offenders. These ways are beneficial and more helpful towards society. A point to prove this would be, creating "justice and fairness". This is beneficial by creating a safer society through unpaid work while also making... address their behaviour. This could be a good idea due to the fact that it would help them (the offenders) re-think their mistakes. However on the other hand some may agree with Source (A) which I agree with partially due to the fact that schemes like 'restorative justice' "place an unfair burden on victims to engage... forcing uncomfortable meetings". This is a good way because some offenders hate meeting especially ones that make a sense and feeling of uncomfort - so this is also a positive due to the fact that they're taking the offenders feelings into consideration. Furthermore I also believe that if the offenders know their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend. This is beneficial because it's also kind of like re-habilitation because it gets them thinking about their rights and wrongs and what the consequences of their wrongs would be. In contrast a community sentence for example can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work while also making them attend programmes to address their behaviour. This would be a good way of teaching them a lesson because it can also help them re-think their life decisions and think about why they can become better people. Whereas if we only stick to less them in jail they will get worse which and increase their problem. In conclusion, I believe that source (B) is correct and support the people in offence and out of.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I mostly agree with source A the reason I agree with Source A more is that source A speaks about punishment and retribution. Punishment and retribution is important because it allows people to understand the should not be broken is the law. If we didn't punish criminals for the crimes others would see this and think they could get away with breaking the law. Source A also speaks about retribution which is also important when speaking about crime because victims of these crimes deserve some sort of justice. While Source B talks about looking at the causes of crime and investing into things such as education and mental treatment I don't believe this will help reduce crime. I belive the sentencing people for commiting crime is a lot more effective. It also means when they are realesed their mindset is likely to change as they've had time to think about their actions. If people who commited these crimes were not given the right punishment they could influence others to commit crimes leading to straight chaos.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I am more inclined to agree with Source A. This is because of valid points such as restorative justice places unfair burdens on victims to engage. Go over why restorative justice is not a good solution. Statistics are also promised in the text with over 99% of convicted criminals re-offending after being long prison sentences. Another reason why I agree with this statement is because public interest needs to be met. In order to feel safe in your community, you may want tighter punishments to ensure the criminals are off the streets and not re-offending. If light sentences are given the community may see it as letting the criminal off which would make the community rely less on the legal system. On the other hand point B had valid points against Point A. They mention that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. This shows the system is flawed in preventing re-offending criminals. What is failed to be mentioned here is the population of the UK in comparison with the population of the rest of Europe. Another valid point made is community sentencing helps pay back to society through social work and it is also significantly cheaper than incarcerating a criminal. In conclusion I agree with B as both points have valid arguments but Point A has more than B.
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 to an extent. This is because of the idea that rehabilitation should be the main focus of justice. This is shown in source B when it is stated that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. There is a major strength in this point because the source highlights that there is a weakness in the united kingdoms justice system as many people still end up reoffending. This shows why aiming for more restorative justice is important as it restorative justice would make the UK a safer place to live in. However it can be argued that the justice system should focus more on punishment this is because restorative justice can be very flawed as it is said in source A to be "placing a burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them." This highlights a weakness in source B's argument that restorative justice should be used because the victim may not want to reconcile with an offender as it can trigger trauma from the crime commited against them. Adding onto this harsher punishment would be effective in reducing crime rates in general because if somebody is threatned with a harsher punishment they are less likely to commit a crime. This highlights another weakness with source B's point as making punishments lighter may increase the liklehood of people commiting crimes. Another reason why some may agree with Source B is because more rehabilitative justice can also ensure better education and understanding of law for previous offenders which can help offenders understand the effects that their actions have on victims. In conclusion I agree with source B more as rehabilitation would be cheaper and decrease the causes of reoffending.
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 more than source A because it has strong arguments. Source B states rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime. Simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little change their behaviour. The strength with this opinion is that to a victim or someone in society, such as using community sentences to wash their behaviour is wrong and to push change to their broken morals. With this argument is that the crime the person has committed is not too much for simple punishment like community time. This might lead people say it is breaking the law of equality which states everyone should be treated fairly. Another view can be on Source A because of some strong points. For example Source A states the fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law. I think view A is fair and those who break the law should be punished on an equal ground and when a serious crime is committed the public's righty expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offense. However the flaws with this argument is that you can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work whilst also making them attend programs that address their behaviour. This is often far more cheaper than a short prison sentence. In my conclusion I think that both views have really strong view points but I think that Source A view point is slightly more specified than B.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree less more with source B as it suggest that harsh punishments are effective and it's better to rehabilitate and reform than to punish. For example it says, "restorative justice can be a powerful tool." I agree with this statement as it's true that helping to build up the prisoners instead of punish them which can have a big impact on their mental health. However what Source B fails to mention is really serious offenders and how long will they try and support these prisoners. I agree with Source A more as they make a powerful argument on why prisoners should be punished. For example it says, "long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated." I agree with this statement as this can prevent future problems as it will scare people doing wrong. However source A does not mention it is more cost effective to keep them there and can also waste tax payers money. In conclusion Source A makes a stronger argument to send a message than to put them through programes that might not work.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
Source A feels that the purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law this ensures it creates a sense of justice and fairness. Source A thinks punishing those who break the law will reduce crime however Source B believes rather than putting people in cells over a crime the root cause of the crime should be tackled to prevent the accident from happening again. Not only are cells in the UK extreemly full but this is becoming an issue for the government and community service sentences will not only help ensure the prison population won't get to high it will also benefit society. It will also cost the government less money as to keep a prisoner in prison yearly expenses can range up to 60 grand per prisoner. However Source A believes harshly punishing offenders will put off new offenders and reduce the likelyhood of reoffenders, as it will send a message across and scare people about the consequences of crime. This will benefit society making the streets safer and reducing the crime rates.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with source A to a large extent. This is because criminals being locked away for a set amount of time keeps the general public at ease as opposed to making criminals go through rehabilitation and potentially letting them out earlier. For example, a person who commits arson could be sent to rehab but when they come out back into society, they commit another crime. This would be bad because the general public would feel unsafe and lose trust in the justice system. However, if that person who committed arson was put in jail for 4 years, the general public would feel safe and not lose trust in the justice system. This point is strong because it uses a real life example to highlight that when criminals are kept for punishment, society as a whole is more safe. Furthermore, you could argue that the justice system should focus on punishment and rehabilitation because its one of its primary goals is to deter potential criminals. For example, if a person wanted to murder someone, but saw the punishment they would get if they got caught, it could stop them from doing it. On the other hand, a person could agree with source B because it allows criminals to see the real world impact of their actions. This means it helps address the causes and helps to integrate them back into society. For example, they could attend programmes that address their behaviour. However, this arguement is flawed because it fails to address the fact that some criminals refuse to take those programmes seriously and it ultimately ends up waist wasting resources. A quantitative chart from 2024 shows us that at least 37% of criminals don't change after rehab. This means that it isn't as effective as punishment and retribution. Ultimately, whilst someone could argue for source B because community sentences help criminals know the severity of their crimes, it inevitably falls short to source A as it is more accurate in protecting the public.
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, this is because they make valid arguments that not only benefit the people of the law but also help the former law breakers to not re-offend. For example Source B talks about how imprisoning criminals costs money and doesn't really serve a purpose, but making them do unpaid labour and forcing them to confront the damage that they created it could cause a change and will be cheaper to do instead of spending unessicary money on jails. This is clearly explored when it quotes "A community sentence, for example, can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid labour while also making them attend programmes that address their behaviour." Another reason why I agree with Source B is because unlike Source A who's only main goal is to focus all their time and expenses on retribution. Source B does what helps everyone as a whole in the situation. For example someone may have been forced to commit a crime as they were at gun point and was forced to leave a bomb at a specific location and that bomb went off ending hundreds of lives. When the police eventually tracks and finds him and in count the man explains how he was forced to leave the bomb. At gunpoint, the hundreds of dead peoples relatives would not care if he was at gunpoint and was forced to do this but would be outraged at him for doing what he did in the first place and would want justice for their loved ones. However others may disagree with my opinion due to there being to many criminals out there knowing the penalty for commiting those crimes and still not caring/having no remorse for what they did. This is illustrated when it quotes "The fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law."
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I agree with Source A more because it shows serious punishments should not be lenient. For example, Source B mentions restorative justice can be a powerful tool giving victims a voice to confront the offender. However they fail to mention how some people may not want to as they feel unsafe and uncomfortable and there is a possibility of it going wrong. This makes Source B's point invalid and weaker because Source A mentions on how the focus should be on punishment and not forcing uncomfortable meetings on others as they may feel threatened. Another reason why I agree with source A more is because they mention how 'soften' sentences are usually less likely to work. For example community sentences. This is because many see it as a way of letting offenders off lightly and are more likely to offend again. But they forget to mention on how community sentence can help some individuals to pay back to society which can be perceived as 'more effective' than a prison sentence and also saves money. Even though I agree with Source A, Source B makes valid points on how rehabilitation and reform can be effective. For example 'simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society.' which is a good point because the UK has the highest reoffending rates in Europe and the approach that they are going for now can be concluded as 'clearly not working'. Therefore even though they may both make good points Source A has a stronger arguement.
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 A because they make some very clear and understandable points. For example I agree with Source A when said "The focus should be on punishment, not on forcing uncomfortable meetings". This is because when offenders commit a crime, making them go to meetings like rehab is pointless since there is no sense of justice given and the offender is not being punished. I also agree with Source A when said "If an offender... they are less likely to reoffend". This is because an offender wouldn't want to commit a crime again if they know their actions would lead to them being trapped in a cell, they would think twice before re offending. On the other hand, I strongly dissagree with Source B when said "This means investing in education... addiction support for offenders". This is because providing offenders with education and mental health treatment is almost like they are being rewarded for their behaviour. There are people that are looking forward to having education or people that are really in need of health care but instead they are given to criminals. That is completly the wrong thing to do. I also strongly disagree with source B when said "giving victims a voice... impact of their actions". This is because some victims don't want to speak to their offenders and forcing them to is no punishment but an unessercery act. Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Source A as their points are very valid and effective, whilst Source B is misunderstood and not effective.
Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer, referring to arguments made in both parts of the source.
I personally, mostly agree with source B - this is because it talks about how it's not good to have a cycle of looking people in jail. And also agree when it says '(A smart system... reforming the individual...)'. This just shows that source B wants to know the real issues and the reasoning of people committing crimes and change it so theres less reoffender. In the other hand people might completly disagree with source B because they will think that if the person can commite the crime once theres nothing anyone can do is to stop them from doing it again. When it says in Source B '(a truley affective system... behaviour and fails our society...)' people might say that since they recommited the crime they will deserve the jail time that they receive so that's also another view people might have on source B. In source A I agree to disagree the reasoning behind this is because it talks about how jail time makes seure people have something to think about before they commite a crime, which is a brilliant point that I personally with and other can also agree but others might belive that certain small crimes have too much of a jail time compared to other things. For example theft can get you up to 6 months in jail being a bit excessive. But other might disagree with the whole of source A, this could be because they belive that jail time is not the only way someone can get punished. In conclusio I mostly agree with source B because they are looking for the bottom of the problem instead of just jailing people.