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.
Hover over a highlight to see the examiner's comment. The highlight will darken.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
While both sources present valid perspectives on reducing crime, I agree more with Source B's focus on rehabilitation and reform. It offers a more pragmatic and sustainable long-term solution to crime reduction by tackling its root causes, an approach which is supported by evidence regarding reoffending. Source A compellingly argues that punishment through 'long, tough prison sentences' serves as a powerful deterrent and ensures justice for victims. The principle of retribution is indeed important for public trust; however, the source's reliance on punishment as the *most effective* method is questionable. For example, Ministry of Justice statistics consistently show that adults who serve custodial sentences of less than 12 months have a reoffending rate of around 60%. This suggests that for many offenders, prison is not an effective deterrent and fails to address the underlying issues causing their criminal behaviour. Conversely, Source B advocates for a 'smart justice system' that prioritises rehabilitation by investing in education, mental health treatment, and addiction support. This directly addresses the failure of the punitive model by seeking to reform the individual, which is crucial given that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. The source highlights cost-effective alternatives like community sentences, which force an offender to repay society while also attending programmes to address their behaviour. This is not only a more targeted approach but is also significantly more cost-effective. A prison place costs the taxpayer over £40,000 per year, money which, as Source B implies, could be better invested in preventative services. In conclusion, while the arguments for punishment in Source A have emotional and moral weight, Source B's evidence-based focus on rehabilitation presents a more convincing and effective strategy for achieving the shared goal of reducing crime in the long term.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with writer A, as he made a strong point of mentioning how prison should be there to protect the public from criminals who will cause harm to society. This is a strong point which as through locking up of criminals, you protect the public and lowers the crime rates throughout the city as it threatens people to not commit crimes. However, this point does not address how the UK has one of the highest re-offending rates in Europe, meaning that rehabilitation of the citizens is also very important. Another point writer A makes is that restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them. This is another strong point, as even though restorative justice aims to better society, it also leads to uncomfortable and often stressful situations for the victims, as the criminal that targeted them is forced to stay with them. Writer B however, says that restorative justice and rehabilitation is more important, by making the point that 'a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of the crime'. This is a powerful point, as it points out that just protecting society does not decrease the crime rate, as the root causes of the crime doings are not tackled. Therefore, rehabilitation is the more suitable sentence to thoroughly protect society for a long time. Prisons are also widely ineffective, as when the criminal is released, nothing is stopping them from re-offending, and if they have mitigating factors then they will get out of prison faster. Another point that writer B makes, is that through turning offenders into law abiding citizens, it strengthens society, and gives the offenders a second chance. This is a weak point, as it is not guaranteed that the offender will follow through with the programme. In conclusion, I greatly agree with writer A, as their point is very powerful due to how society is safer when arrests and prison sentences are the main goal of the justice system. It prevents people from committing crime due to fear, and makes sure that society is safe. Even though writer B's idea of rehabilitation over punishment is a good concept, in society and in practice it would fail to keep society safe.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
On the one hand source A says justice system is to punish those who break the law. This is credible because one of the main reasons for the justice system is to punish those who break the law to not only protect the public but also refers to the rule of law which says no body is above the law and if a crime is committed they will be punished. However the justice system isnt just to punish it is also to prevent. Source A says the 'sentence should reflect the severity of the offence.' Although this is true the more people put into prison comes with a cost and although sending offenders to prison seems like the ideal solution the percentage of criminals who reoffend just after a year is high so although punishment is key to the justice system there is an uncertainty about if they will reoffend after being punished. On the other hand source B says investing in education, mental health treatment, and addiction support for offenders can create a safer society. This is credible as bad education, mental health issues and addictions such as drugs and drink are some main reasons why some chose to offend and by helping it may help them to stop offending. However what source B hasn't mentioned is that all education in the uk is good, the government spend hundreds of pounds per student and education is free up to 18 so why should people pay more tax to the government to make schools 'better' when it is up to you to look after your education when everything is provided for you. Contrastingly source A says 'restorative justice place an unfair burden on victims'. This is less credible as the victim to choose weather or not they would like restorative justice also many victims are happy there is restorative justice as it helps them to understand why the person who has harmed them did it. Lastly source B says 'A smart justice system doesn't just punish the crime; it addresses the causes and work to prevent.' This is credible as the justice system shouldnt just aim to punish it should also aim to prevent. In conclusion I agree with source B as the justice system isnt just to punish but to also protect and prevent which happens through things like rehabilitation and restorative justice rather than spending large amounts on prisons with the hope of no reoffending.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
On one hand, some might say Source A (justice system should focus on punishment and retribution) is a more effective way to sentence offenders. This ensures that those who harm the public are locked away, stopping them from creating further harm and committing more crimes. This might be more effective when it is done things like a community service where you can not share/abuse the offender as much, leading to more crime. Source A has a strong point where it says - 'tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated'. These long prison sentences make people think twice before committing crimes, which could decrease the crime rate. However, Source A has a weak point where it says - 'unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them' as being face to face with the offender and understand why they did what they did could help you understand more. On the other hand, others would agree that Source B (the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform) is more effective. This way, instead of just punishing people for their crimes, you can tackle the root causes of crime. By doing this, people will understand what they did was wrong and could change from that. Also, through means like community service, not only is the offender doing their time but also giving back to society. This is more effective as it doesn't just punish the crime but addresses the causes and works to prevent future victims. Source B has a strong point where it says 'creating a safer society in the long term' as giving sentences only stops crime for a period of time whereas rehabilitation could stop it for longer. However, source B has a weak point where it says 'giving victims a voice' as victims may be more scared to speak up knowing that they could not be locked up behind a cell.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
These arguments are based on punishments and retribution. I agree with source A the most. giving out strong points like the justice system punishes those who break the law setting a tone of fairness and justice. The justice system doesn't give you harsh, tough and long sentences over any law broken. There are levels for example stealing from a local shop for the first time won't give you a harsh punishment but robbing a bank would give you a pretty harsh sentence, two similar scenarios and two different punishments. This source mention's the state's power and authority showing that people will follow simple instructions, showing a fair, followed society that can easily be followed with law protected rights and the justice system. This source talks about the restorative justice place is unfair, which I agree with but is not possible to fight against including the fact that the UK want to avoid trouble as much as they can, showing self ability. I disagree with Source B. giving weak points like "A smart justice system doesn't just punish the crime". The reason why I have picked out this quote is because the whole point of a justice system is to make the victim feel better to punish the person that commits the crime. They also talk about how the numbers of reoffenders should be reduced but people leave jail or prison with nothing sometime leaving them no choice but to return to prison to have food, shelter and water the three main needs for a survival. In my conclusion I agree with Source A the most by being able to give points out and giving out well explained evidence to back it. While Source B gives out points but adds extra details to make the justice system sound good or bad.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with Source B rather than Source A. My reason for that is that the justice system should be helping to make offenders into law abiding citizens instead of just putting them in jail and leaving them. The problem with a justice system for punishment is that the criminals won't be learning from their mistakes and building themselves up. A justice system of punishment would just lead to more people reoffending. In the text it says that, "for example, can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work while also making programmes that adress their behavior. This is often far more effective and cheaper than a short prison sentence". This shows that a more rehabilitation justice system is far more better as on the costs side it's cheaper for the government. A reason why someone might disagree with me and agree with Source A is that how a rehabilitation justice system can be seen as "lenient" and undermines the public's trust and devalues the suffering of criminals. I disagree with this as building criminals to become better citizens. This is a better option as it lowers the risks of reoffenders overall making the streets a safer place. For example, if you just send someone to prison just to sit there, they would have learnt nothing making them have a higher chance to reoffend. Whereas, if the justice system is focused on rehabilitation and reforming of criminals then there will be less of a risk of them reoffending. This eventually leads to a safer place. In conclusion I do agree more with Source B than Source A. This is because the positives of a justice system around rehabilitation has far more positives than negatives.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
Initially, Source A states the fact that when an offender commits a crime the right thing to do is to sentence them that reflects the severity of the offence which is also know as retribution (taking revenge). However on the other hand Source B argues that although retribution and punishment has a role the more effective way is to prioritise rehabilitation. Prioritising rehabilitation could reduce and prevent the amount of offenders offending. This way is more useful, as it doesn't just punish the crime it addresses it and works to prevent it from happening in the future. On the other hand I thoroughly agree with Source B. Source A says that the focus should be on punishment and not forcing uncomfortable meetings which is called restorative justice engaging with the person who harmed them. Community sentences sometimes do fail to succeed. We also have a responsibility to protect the public and that often means imprisoning dangerous individuals to prevent them from causing futher harm. This is also a very effective way on sentences offenders however locking them away doesn't stop the fact that they can't reoffend again. However Source B said, the justice system states that the key responsibility is to turn offenders into law abiding citizens. A community sentence can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work, whilst also making them attend programmes that address their behaviour. Which could affect their mental state in a good way and for them to change for the better.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
Firstly, Source A has a strong point in saying that punishment ensures justice and fairness for society, and backs this point up by explaining how punishment excersises the state's power and authority, and serves retribution for killers, detering potential criminals and keeping society safe. This is a strong point because without punishment and retribution, more people would be inclined to offend as they would see their punishment as 'lenient'. However, a weakness of this argument is that it fails to take into account the fact that so many people get wrongly accused, so punishing innocent people would give society a negative view of justice. Additionally Source A has a weak point in saying that restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims. This is false as in many cases, restorative justice makes the offender feel guilty and empathetic, making them want to reform, and it also gives victims a chance to understand the offender and the situation, which could put them more at ease. Secondly, Source B has a strong point in saying that the justice system should prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime. It explains this by saying that punishment on its own does nothing to change the offender's behavior, and that giving support to these offenders will ultimately benefit society as there is less chance of them re-offending. This is a strong point as with rehabilitation the rates of reoffending goes down as it reforms people into law-abiding citizens. Restorative justice also forces the criminals to give back to the victims and society by working. This would also give society a positive view of justice, as victims can have their voice heard. and Source B also states that the UK has one of the highest re-offending rates in Europe, proving that the UK's current approach to justice (punishment and retribution) is not beneficial. Meanwhile, countries like Norway have much lower reoffending rates as they take steps to reform criminals. Overall, I agree with Source B more as it has been proven that restorative justice reforms criminals and benefits society.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
In my personal opinion I mainly agree with Source B. Saying justice should mainly focus on rehabilitation and reform. One reason for this is that rather than placing people in a constant cycle of punishment with no actual development taking place, it helps those criminals into rejoining society and becoming civilised members of a community. The UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in europe as it demonstrates how our current system is failing us. One way we can combat this is investing in things such as education addiction support and youth centres not only to stop people from reperding but also prevent such crimes taking place. A type of punishment that should be inforced is restorative justice. this is because it allows criminals to see the real world effect of there offences and how it has harmed people. On the otherhand many may argue and agree with the point that the justice system should focus only on punishment and retribution. This is because they may beleive posners deserve to pay the full debt of consequences due to there actions if not more. this is because it would deter other people also to commit the same crime. They are used as an example for everybody to not follow in there footsteps. Early sentences and prison prevent prisoners from not serving all the consequences making people more likely to reoffend. Overall I believe Source B as it bring offenders a light at the end of the tunst to strive away from the dark road they were on and turn a new leaf in order to have a better more successfull life that begins a new beginning like a clean slate.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I strongly agree with Source B due to the justice system not just prioritising punishment. By this I mean the justice system isn't just used to punish offenders, but can also be used to change their behavior and also protect the community. For example when wanting to change behaviour the justice system can put the offender on a community sentence for 40-300 hours, this service involves reformation through responsibility and forcing the individual to pay back to society through unpaid work which also involves making them attend programmes that address their behaviour. In addition to this community sentences are much cheaper than a short prison sentence. In addition to this rehabilitation and reformation doesn't devalue suffering victims, due to a thing called restorative justice; restorative justice gives the victim a voice and forces offenders to confront the real-world impact of their actions. This would help not only the victim but the offender since they are learning and accepting their wrong doings. Arguably Source A can be agreed with since punishment and retribution please the public and give them a higher sense of security and protection. This is because if an offender knows that no matter how big or small the crime is they will be serving time in prison, reducing their freedom it would significantly decrease the chance of them reoffending / maintaining order and keeping crime rate low. This act would show the state's power and authority and send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. In conclusion to all the points, I strongly agree with Source B because it gives a chance for offenders not only to learn skills and stop bad habits that influence committing a crime but also somewhat protects and builds trust in society through the offenders paying back to the community.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I mainly agree with source B. This is because it understands that both punishment and rehabilitation play a role on victims and society as a whole. For example, source A says "long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated." However it fails to acknowledge that people commit crime for various reasons and there are mitigating factors which pardon a person slightly more for their crime such as mental illness. Additionally, "long, tough prison sentences" are simply dehumanising and do not allow for the root of the crime to be fixed. That being said, source B says "creating a safer society in the long term... can only be achieved by reducing the number of people who reoffend." I disagree with this particular statement as although society needs people not to reoffend, it also needs people not to commit crime and instilling fear in people is one way to do that. For example, source A says "imprisoning dangerous individuals... prevents them from causing further harm." This means people in society will not only feel safer, but also have an example of what happens when you commit crime - and nobody wants to be punished. On the other hand, source A also says "schemes like restorative justice place an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them." This is a bad point as it fails to mention that restorative justice only occurs when both parties agree to it, meaning the victim and perpetrator both agree to empathise with each other. This, like source B says "gives victims a voice" and "forces offenders to confront the real-world impact of their actions", which is where both parties rely on understanding and empamy - which I believe are the basis of a coherent society. To conclude, I agree mainly with source B, although source A makes some strong points, because source B rightly highlights the importance behind solving the root cause of a crime and the importance of how understanding can decrease the number of reoffences. Additionally, focusing on rehabilitation and reform seems to be the more humane justice system, where justice is in place but society doesn't have to live in fear.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with both sources, however I agree with source B more as in order to create a safe community we must destroy the root cause of this there as just punishing someone then putting them back in the enviroment that caused them to act this way won't help. One reason why I agree with source A is because we need justice and fairness for the victims of the crimes. For example, if someone is murdered the family deserves to see the criminal put in prison and punished for their crimes, as it shows that you can't get away with crimes as well as showing that there is a sense of fairness in society. This means that it would deter people from committing crimes as any logical person doesn't want to be imprisoned and punished. However, punishing someone without try to help and figure out why they did what they did causes other people to commit that same crime even if you stopped that single person from committing the crime again. One reason why I agree with source B is because we need to try tackle the root cause of a crime in order to stop the crime fully. For example if someone is selling drugs it might be because they feel as if there is no other way to make money and if they can't make this money they may be homeless or starving. As a community if we try and help to help and figure why that person acted it means we can build a community in which stops others from commiting there crime. This mean that instead of punishing a single person and stopping them from committing a crime we can help others to stop doing that crime. In conclusion I agree with B more.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree more with source B. This is because source B addresses the root causes of crime and injustice in society. B correctly offers solutions to reduce crime rates and reoffending rates for future generations. For example, B states that a key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens. He also mentions that punishment systems such as community sentences can force an individual to pay back to society in ways other than jail time. For example, individuals have the ability to pay back to society by doing unpaid work. This means that not only does our society gain valuble resources in the form of goods and services, the offender also has the opportunity to learn new skills that could help them find a job after they serve their time. In addition B also states that methods such as restorative justice can help the offender confront the real world impact of their actions. This will allow the offender to reflect on their actions and change in the future. This will prevent them from reoffending in the future. On the other hand one might agree with Source A. This is because A realises that the severity of the crime committed, should directly match the punishment given. For example, A states that the public rightly expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence. This means that punishment should serve as retribution to fufill the desires of the public. A weakness of this view is that even if the desires of the public are fufilled, it doesn't address the root cause of the crime, meaning that the offender could reoffend. However, one could argue that if society as a whole is satisfied, they will be much less likely to commit crimes. In addition A also states that if an offender knows their actions could lead to a significant loss of freedom they are less likely to offend. In conclusion I agree more with B as he offers much more definite solutions to prevent crime in the future.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with source B because when they said the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe; our current approach is clearly not working. 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 addition support for offenders. However a community sentence, for example, can for an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work while also making them attend programmes that address their behaviour. Similarly, restorative justice can be a powerful tool, giving victims a voice and forcing offenders to confront the real world impact of their actions. A key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law abiding citizens. While punishment has a role, a truly effective justice system must prioritize rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime. However the source A has also her explanation for focus on punishment and retribution. The fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law. This ensures a sense of justice and fairness for victims and society as a whole. Leniency and so called soft options undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims. This primary goal must be to deter potential criminals, long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated, making our communities safer. However schemes like restorative justice place an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them. If an offender knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend. We have a responsibility to protect the public, and that often means imprisoning dangerous individuals to prevent them from causing further harm.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I partially agree with writer B as they say the justice system should focus on reform and rehabilitation. This is due to the fact that writer B states that putting criminals in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and makes the justice system a failure to society since criminals are people too. However writer A says this is a good point because it appeals to the humanity of the criminal as they could have made mistakes or had a bad background which led them to a life of crime. On the other hand writer A says that handing out lengthy prison sentences it would make them less likely to reoffend since they know it's going to lead to a significant loss of freedom. However writer B counters this point by stating that regardless of this the UK still proceeds to have one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe, this shows that the UK's current methods of punishment might be ineffective. Source B states that restorative justice is a powerful tool giving victims a voice and forcing offenders to confront the real life impact of their actions. However I believe that this is a poor point because although the fact about the prisoner confronting their actions may be true, the criminal may firstly have no remorse and it could cause severe emotional distress to the victims. Writer A also states that restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims. Overall after looking at both arguments I'm inclined to agree with writer B as they cater to the human side of the criminal.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with Source A to an extent, this is because offenders shouldn't have the right to commit a crime and get away with it by not sitting their time in a prison. Not punishing those who commit crimes can lead to more crimes being commited and justice and fairness will no longer be needed. Without punishment citizens would not be safe outside. As there is a justice system their job is to punish those that commit crime and to not let crime be tolerated. However others might disagree with source A and argue that Source B is agreeable, this is only because the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe and this is due to the fact that prisons aren't doing their jobs properly and prisoners are continuing to reoffend. Also making the offenders "attend programmes that address their behaviour" is seen as being much cheaper. Although this is seen as cheaper it might not be efficient and this will lead to offenders reoffending by not taking the crime serious. Furthermore it's not fair on victims that they have to do restorative justice and engage with the criminal that offended them. As Source A says 'The focus should be on punishment not on forcing uncomfortable meetings'. I believe that community sentences are a way of letting the criminal get along with their crime and giving them another chance to reoffend. This wouldn't help society because this would lead to victims being put in danger. Overall Source A is right because they punish everyone who has committed a crime. And wants to create a safe environment for others.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree more with source B that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. I say this because Source B states the positives and effects and possible outcomes of focusing more on rehabilitation and reformation. Where Source A has also quite clearly stated the effects and outcomes of soley focusing on punishment and retribution. however I disagree that community sentences often fail to work as community services has been one of the main sources of rehabilitation. I agree with Source A that leniency and soft options could undermine the public trust and devaluate the suffering of victims, however I disagree with source A that long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime shall not be tolerated. I don't believe simply only this will for sure make our communities safer. I agree more with source B as source B has stated that simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does anything to change their behaviour. I agree that the concept of justice and fairness must extend to creating a safer society in the long run. Investing in such as education, mental health treatment and addiction contributes to doing so. Like Source A says, the key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law abiding citizens. Community sentences can force an individual to pay back to the society with unpaid work while also addressing and reflecting on their behaviour. Unlike long, tough sentences without physically letting offender reflect and also help the communities, this is normally cheaper and significant than a short term prison sentence. Overall I agree and stand by source B that the "justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform". as I believe that other than locking up an offender, we should focus on tackling the root of the issue and crime. As source B states, "a justice system shouldn't just punish the crime but also address the causes and work to prevent".
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree more with source A this is because the justice system is to punish those who break the law. this then shows justice and fairness. because without punishment prisoners are more likely to reoffend again. tough prison sentences shows that it's a crucial exercise of power and authority. Another reason why punishment is more effective is because it can protect the public from futher harm. and that shows that punishment makes offenders less likely to reoffend. punishment is also the most effective way of maintaining order. Another point is that the prisoners will get to learn their lesson this shows that crime is not tolerated. Without punishment then the public wont be safe. I agree to an extent with Source B this is because rehabilitation progammes could see the root causes of a crime. this could show us that punishment might not change the offender's behaviour. Another key word could be justice and fairness this can create a safer society this can also reduce the number of people who reoffend. Another key point is responsibility of a justice system this tells us offenders could be someone who abides the laws and obeys them. In conclusion, I think that Source B explains why rehabilitation progammes are more effective and how it can prevent someone from commiting that same crime again.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I think a tool like rehabilitation is a good way to reform reoffenders as they would deter from their previous crimes. Although prisoners or reoffenders could easily take a bad advantage of this, it still helps the community feel protected and secure from dangerous activities and engagements of several crimes. I disagree with the idea of revenge because it can build a negative effect and impact on reoffenders which causes them to grow their resentment on society and eventually continuing in illegal activities consistently.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with Source A about how the justice system should focus on punishment and retribution. as in the text it is stated the fear of punishment from prisons prevents them from offending and if they have committed a crime, the experience will prevent them from reoffending. Pyschologically, human's are less likely to do something if it comes with a harsh downside therefore if the severity of prison sentences are addressed well, the rate of offences will decrease. The use of prison also makes sure the public victims of crime recieve justice. If the system fails to punish, it will result in lack of public trust and will show that the suffering of the victims has been devalued. However, many people may choose to agree with source B which states that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform as it allows the root causes of crime to be identified and tackled. Rehabilitative methods are shown statistically to possibly be the better option for the UK as currently we have the highest reoffending rates in Europe which shows that the current method which focuses more on punishment may not be working. If the root causes of crime are addressed through interrogating criminals in rehabilitation, it means that less reason is given for people to reoffend which can severly bring down crime rates and even improve the economy as less money is wasted on putting people in prison. Overall, I agree with Source A as a punishment for actions is a repel for criminals to commit crimes, meaning crime rates decrease. With rehabilitation criminals may not see a consequence in their actions and may continue to offend.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with source B because the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reforms as punishment and retribution isn't good enough. as if we punish people can still offend again but rehabilitation it will stop the main cause of the crime which will end people doing the crime which would be the most effective way to stop reoffenders. This is because the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. This shows that punishment simply doesn't fix the society which means rehabilitation is the only way to fix society and it is the most effective way to stop crime. However punishment and retribution helps people but only in the short term, if we rehabilitate it will help in the long term and makes it a more society sustainable. However it is known that through unpaid work some prisoners could be the chance to escape. Also in source A it says that the main purpose is that "when someone breaks a law they must be punished". as people think if they don't see the punishment they may not be scared of the consequence of commiting the crime. Also punishment is good as this helps us protect the public as it holds the dangerous people and stops them from doing more harm. Overall, I agree with source B because it helps stop the main cause of the crime. If you do not stop the main cause it will just lead to the crime unevenly as the key responsibilty of the justice system is to prevent and stop the crime and to turn offender into normal law abiding citizens. I still agree with source A that there should be order but I thank 80% of source B is is effective the punishment.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with both A and B but the source I agree with the most is Source A. This is because once someone has commited a serious crime they become a criminal and get a criminal record which means they can't be trusted. And I think that they should take some accountability and responsibility for what they did before they are given another chance. Community sentences often fail to work which cause people to reoffend and its more likley for someone to get hurt because the criminal has not been taken care of effectively. On the other side of this I also partially agree with Source B. The reason I agree with Source B is because you never know why someone has commited a crime. It could be because of background, their past trauma and it could also be mental issues. So the way to take care of things could be by giving them a second chance. A point I agree with in source B is "A community sentence... is far more effective and significantly cheeper than a short prision sentence". The reason I agree with that is because it gives a person a last chance to prove that they can be trusted. And by putting people in Prison is wasting tax money that could be used for a better cause. Lastly, back to my first point I think that its better to spend money on locking someone up and protecting the public rather than someone loosing their life or getting badley injured. The point I really agree with in Source A is: "Long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tollerated, making our communities safer". In conclusion, I mostly agree with Source A as I think punishment and retribution is a better way to deal with criminals, as they are grown, mature, and know the consequences to their actions.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree more with Source B. They have a strong point when they say that "the UK has one of the highest reoffending in Europe and that's why we should" prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime. Source B is saying that if we focus resources on addressing the initial causes of crime, we severly reduce the chance of that person reoffending, therefore making communities safer. Additionally, Source B says that a key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens", which can be done by various means, like a "community sentence which "can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work." However, Source B has failed to conside that many prisoners simply do not mentally reflect their actions, even after days of back-breaking labour. This does not change their character, and they likely go back to commiting crime. Source A on the other hand, also makes an excellent point when saying that "the public rightly expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence." They are right in considering that the public wants criminals to pay the price, especially for crimes like homicide. If criminals got off with light sentences, they would not spend enough time - be it in prison or doing a community sentence - to think about exactly why they did what they did and come out into society unchanged. Additionally, Source A says that "schemes like restorative justice place an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them". This is also a great point as Source A is saying that victims meeting the people who hurt them puts unnecessary trauma back into their mind, which naturally upsets them. Source A fails to consider that both parties must consent for restorative justice meetings to take place, meaning that any uncomfortable victims would have said no. Overall, I agree more with Source B on that the justice system should focus more on rehabilitation, as adressing the root causes of criminal activity done by people ensures that they have a less likely chance of reoffending. Focussing on punishment only does not make criminals change their minds at all, and they more likely reoffend.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
In source A, it gives many points, highlighting why the justice system should focus more about punishment and retribution. The source goes on to mention that thing like restorative justice are an "unfair burden." I agree with this statement, only because source B states that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates. The restorative justice scheme forces offenders to realise their actions, which could have a toll on mental health. This can also lead to reoffending. However, Source B goes on to mention that the justice should foc on rehabilitation and reform. this ensures a safer place for victims/civillians once the offender is released. The offender should be able to realise their wrongdoing, and make a change. Investing in "education, mental health treatment and addiction support" can 100% help those with offenses. They are given another chance in society, to change for the better, not just going back to their old ways. With both of these arguments, I agree with source B the most. This is because it is allowing offenders to see the world in a different light, and not thinking they can't change because of their past. Rehabilitation is a powerful tool, helping to fix their mental health, which is why I believe rehabilitation and reform is what the justice system should focus on.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
For me, the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform as the main causes of people reoffending is that they don't get help with the way they have to change. Source A shows that the main purpose of the Justice System is to punish those who break the law. Which suposidly ensures a sense of justice and fairness for the victims involved and society as a whole. The primary goal is to send a loud and clear message that crime will not be tolerated and will be fought against in an orderly manner. Source A also talks about schemes that involve restorative justice so there is an unfair burden on victims when they have to engage with the person or people who harm them. Where as Source B states that punishment isn't truly effective as it doesn't help offenders retain information and the way they should behave morally as it doesn't tackle the root of crime. Punishment being the main focus isn't going to change ways people behave, it forces them to work hard but not change their ways. The main concept of restorative justice should be extending to create a safer society for the public, which can be achived by changing the ways the justice system works. Which means the government should get more involved and start investing more into education, mental health treatment and support for offenders to make the country a safer place. In my opinion, I agree with both sources but Source B a bit more as it explains how punishment won't always change or teach people and that focusing on rehabilitation and reform could actually change offenders for the good and contribute to fairness between the victim and offenders. A smart justice system shouldn't just punish the crime, it should address the root causes and make a change for the future.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I slightly agree with Source B because it talks about the justice and fairness for victims and society. For example when a serious crime is commited the public expect a scentence to show a sign of retribution and leniency and so called soft options undermine the public trust and it will devalue the suffering victims. This is a crucial exercise of the state's power and authority. In addition schemes like restorative justice place an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them and their main focus needs to be more focused on punishment not forcing uncomfortable meetings. But not everyone is going to agree with this point because most people are victims and scared that they will engage with the person who harmed them. Source B also says that locking people up and keeping them inside for years wont help them change. For example the UK has the biggest reoffending population in Europe and the current appronce isn't working. After reading all the arguments I agree with Source B because helping people reform will help the population.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree with Source B because it empashises how they shouldn't just punish the person but find out the reason why they commit the crime. The reason why I agree with Source B is the source has more evedince and can back each point. One of the reason is the impart of locking up someone with knowing the reason. "cycle of punishment does little change to their impact". This mean it no matter what sentance you give them they will still do the same and have and can't do it knowing they will just get arrested and thatsit. Whereas emphasis on making sure they pay for their action rather than letting them go freely. Some people may argue and agree with Source A because they think that the system when going to jail is breaking law and they should be imprisoned to know they are locked up for a good time. The reason why some people say A is is more sensibal, because it shows that going to jail is you serving time and to be thinking about their readyness. "a justice system to punish those break law ensures justice and fairness". In conclusion I agree with A as it has more reasonable ansuar and not only thinks about punishment but the impact on the prison... so they would help them on the good side which can be impactful when being relased so it's helpful.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
I agree more with source B. This is because it says that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform. In the extract it says "a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime." I think this is a strong point because if you punish people for revenge then you are not actually teaching them a moral lesson which means that when they are released from prison, they can still reoffend after not being taught how to behave. However, one strong point about source A is that 'Leniency and so-called soft options' undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims. This is important but leniency is important because it gives people the opportunity to take accountability in their actions and change their behaviour. Another reason why I agree more with source B is because it says a key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens. One reason why I agree with this strong point is because people may not have committed a crime on purpose and by mistake so that key responsibility is important because it gives people a second chance to change since people are not perfect. On the other hand, one strong point of source A is that long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated, making our community safer. Furthermore, another reason why I agree more with source B is because it says restorative justice can be a powerful tool as it gives victims a voice and forces offenders to confront the real world impact of their actions. One reason why I think this is a strong point is because it gives people the opportunity to plead their case...and the right to a fair trial. Another reason why I think source A has a weak point is because it says the fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish people who break the law. I think this is a weak point because if you punish people, then when they are released from prison they have not learnt a moral lesson. In conclusion I agree more with source B because it gives people a chance to change.
"Both writers agree that the aim of the justice system is to reduce crime. Which writer do you agree with most? Explain your answer by evaluating the arguments in both sources and using your own knowledge."
Source A focuses on the philosophy of retribution, the idea that criminals should recieve a punishment fit for the crime commited. The source makes several strong points such as mentioning how restorative justice and rehabilitation "devalues the suffering of victims" by being too lenient towards criminals. The Source A also mentions how restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims as they are forced to interact with the person who harmed them. however what the source doesn't consider is that both the victim & the aggressor have to agree be in agreement for restorative justice to take place. This means that no interactions are forced and schemes such as restorative justice will only be used if both parties agree to it. Source B focuses on the philosophy of reform rehabilitation, the idea that we should tackle the roots of crime. The source makes several strong points such as mentioning how, under the current system of retribution, the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. The core concept of rehabilitation is to ensure a safer societey in the future. Source B fails to realise is that forcing people to work for no pay goes against their human rights. This critical moral flaw in the system of rehabilitation goes to show how the systems aim to secure the country a better future may not be entierley good as it will most likley be built on the forced labour of many people. Overall, both sources make good points however, I am more inclined to agree with Source A as Source B's idea of rehabilitation can violate human rights whilst forcing criminals to do unpaid work. Retribution is also seen as a harsher method of punishment by the general public, making it a better detterant for first time offenders.