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.
This highlight shows analysis of View B.
This highlight shows your own Evaluation, where you weigh the views or make a judgment.
Hover over any highlighted text to see the specific examiner comment.
"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 as it has many strong points. For example 'A truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root cause of crime' and 'simply locking up people in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behavior and fails our society'.This is a good evaluative point, identifying a potential weakness in the idea of restorative justice. The UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. The reason this point is strong is because it makes a valid point that throwing people in jail without dealing with what caused them to do the crime will eventually lead to them doin it again as it highlighted with the UK's high reoffending rate providing evidence to support its claims.You are correctly identifying a key argument from Source B. On the other hand, I'm not in agreement with Source A as it makes weak points like 'schemes like restorative justice... person who harmed them'. Even though this point holds some weight it's weak as it fails to mention how meeting the person who has done something criminally unjust towards you or yours family is optional.Acknowledging and evaluating a counter-argument from Source A is a good skill. A majority of countrys come up with cost effective ways 'A community sentence can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work'. This point not only considers the victim but society as a whole and the criminal as if criminals does community service it gains qualifications for when they are let out making them feel more motivated to live a more honest life.This point from Source B is well-explained. However Source A has a strong point. 'A system based on of maintaining order'. This point B is strong but it doesnt provide any evidence and it undermined the efforts of countrys with a restorative justice system which have a very low refending value. In conclusion I agree with point Source B as all points provide have strong evidence and are all factual.This is a good attempt at a final judgment, weighing the evidence.
"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."
A strong reason why I agree with this more with Source A is because he is able to clearly explain how crucial the States power and authority is.A clear statement of judgment to start your answer. Furthermore, he talks abouts how offenders are punished to protect civilians and/or discourage bad behaviour so they would not commit the same offence in the future. Another point made in Source A is that criminals should have long tough sentence to send clear messages that crime is not tolerated.You are clearly explaining the core arguments of Source A here. However, this is not a fair judgement specifically because offenders could get off their sentence to commit the same crime again.This is an interesting evaluative comment, identifying a potential unfairness in Source A's argument. Whereas in Source B, they make a clear point as offenders should instead of getting imprisoned they should invest in things such as education, mental health treatment, and addiction supports as putting offenders in prison does nothing to help or to teach.Good explanation of the key arguments in Source B. This could show the responsibility of the justice system as it can encourage offenders to turn into good law abiding citizens and members of the public.This is a good evaluative point, connecting the source's ideas to the concept of responsibility.
"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."
Even though Source A has good point about the justice sister. Point A is a balance and fair justice giving offender a second chance.A simple statement of agreement. One reason why source b has more effective justice system than source a is because it's give a offend chance to reflect on what they done to E.G communis. The justice system should tackle the main problem in society like reoffend. The UK has one of the highest reoffend rate in to Europe so this is the soverment want lower the offender rate they should give rehabilitation to offender. This give ex offende a hard punishment that also give them another chance by giving prison ex offender something to do help ex offende make to get contifed by making the ex offender learn skill to fit in to society again and get job instead of then going back to their life of crime. This would be more effective than just put people in prison does change people most of the time they still commited there also. This could also help education prisoner and help them with addiction.You correctly identify the key arguments from Source B about tackling reoffending. This is also very effective for example this could help pps back society for there to pps back.This is an attempt at evaluation, though the reasoning is a little unclear. A key importance in justice system is responsibility is offender learn to take responsibility.This is a good point from Source B. Now the ex could be con-abiding. And by doing this justice system it is much cheaper for government. This is because per prisoner the government pay 40,000 pound to 50,000 pound to keep prison in prisoner and also by doing this can reduce the overcrowd that prisoner are facing because UK has to deal because they are sjust kick prisoner because the lack of space.Excellent! Using specific own knowledge about the cost of imprisonment is a great way to support your argument and show evaluation.
"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."
Despite source A believes in the fundamental purpose of the justice system to "punish those who break the law" and the priority is to stop potential criminals, I agree more with source B as the justice system should rather focus on rehabilitation as it is the most effective method.A clear introduction that acknowledges the opposing view before stating your own judgment. One reason why I agree with source B more, is because they believe to "prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime".A clear point based on Source B. This is an excellent argument as they believe to stop crime on a long-term and to stop the cycle of re-offenders. This is true because in the UK currently for minor crimes the re-offending rate is around 44%, but can be decreased to around 12% if we use rehabilitation.This is an excellent example of integrating specific, accurate own knowledge to support the source's argument. This is a high-level skill. Furthermore, in order to support the idea of decreasing re-offending rates, source B argues that we should invest in education and addiction support for offenders".Another well-explained point from Source B. This is an amazing point as it allows prisoners to gain a sense of maturity and to understand the wrong doing of their actions which will decrease re-offending rates. I know that this is true as it was demonstrated in the US as crimes such as theft was stopped after prisons implemented education on prisoners, which decreased re-offending rates significantly and saved the county states thousands of dollars from holding re-offenders in a cell.Superb! Using evidence from another context (the US) demonstrates detailed knowledge and strengthens your evaluation significantly. Another reason why I agree more with source B more than source A, because the source B argues to implement and rebuild responsibility. This is demonstrated as source B argues that "community service... force an individual to repay society through unpaid work".This point about community service is explained well. This is a valid point as it demonstrates a symbol of integrity as society won't see them as "lousy scums" but regretful and guilty individuals who have value in society through community service, which makes them not want to re-offend; this is true as re-offend dropped to less than 10% with community service.You are again using own knowledge about reoffending rates to add weight to your evaluation. On the other hand, source A argues that restorative justice" places an "unfair burden on victims".You are now effectively dealing with the counter-argument from Source A. A flaw in this arguement is that source A forgot to mention that victims can consent to this and it also allows them to confess their opinions rather haunting them.Excellent evaluation. You identify a flaw or omission in Source A's argument, which is a very sophisticated skill. Furthermore, source A also argues that "community sentences often fail to work". This is wrong as community service allows offenders to repay society portraying them regret towards their actions, which justifies source B's arguement.This is another strong point of evaluation, challenging a claim from Source A. Therefore, I agree more with source B's arguement overall as they believe to help create effeciency for both the government and the people, but to also teach offenders fundamental knowledge through education in prisons that will prevent re-offending rates. Whereas source A does portray valid arguements in the concept of punishment and retribution. In conclusion, I agree more with source B.A clear and well-supported concluding statement.
"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."
Despite, Source A being strongly explained... I truly agree with Source B as it fully expresses the main point and the reasoning why the justice system was actually set up.A good start that acknowledges both views but clearly states your own judgment. One reason I agree with source B is because it states that a "system must prioritise rehabilitation to tell the root causes of crime". This means that offenders would be less likely to reoffend.You are correctly explaining the main argument from Source B. Adding to this people at young age would understand the depths and seriousness of commiting crime. Due to the likelihood of getting in trouble with police at the age of 13 children should be taught how and what bad things they should and shouldn't be doing.This is an attempt to develop the point with your own reasoning, which is good. The current justice system which focuses on punishment and retribution is clearly not effective, this is evident as "the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe" which proves my points of how we should focus on telling the root cause of crime and stopping the crime from happening.Using quotes from the source is a good way to support your points. However on the other hand Source A could be argued against and people could relate more with source A... it states how "schemes like restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them".It's good that you are now addressing the other source. This may mean that victims should not be forced to face criminals who may has misjudged or harmed them.You are explaining the implications of this argument well. Addition on to this "the public rightly expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence; this is retribution".Another accurate point from Source A. In conclusion I believe that despite Source A explaining many strong beliefs and points, crime should be cut at the roots, for example such as rehabilitating and the criminals by their root...A clear, if brief, conclusion that summarises your judgment.
"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."
Despite Source A showing good points of why we should focus on punishment and retribution, I agree more with Source B as I think criminals should understand what they have done and learn from their actions.A well-balanced introduction that acknowledges the merits of Source A before stating a clear judgment. For example in Source B, it says "Simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little change to their behaviour".You use a quote effectively to make a clear point about Source B's argument. This point explains why I agree with this point as prisons are more chaotic and this could make a prisoner take advantage when they get released and reoffend.This is your own reasoning to expand on the point, showing good understanding. Source A says "if an offender knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend".You are now bringing in a counter-argument from Source A. This is not a good point as the UK has one of the highest reoffending in Europe so this is why I think the core concept of Justice and Fairness must extend to as it will create a safer society in the long term and it can only be acheived by reducing the number of reoffenders.Excellent evaluation! You are directly using an argument from one source (high reoffending rates) to challenge and weaken an argument from the other source. This is a key skill. Overall, I agree with Source B. I think a smart justice system doesn't punish the crime; it addresses the causes and work to prevent future victims by reforming the individual.A strong and well-phrased conclusion that summarises the philosophy of the source you agree with.
"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."
Despite source A being a strong and solid point, I agree with Source B more. This is because although source A is about revenge and punishment, Source B is about re-habilitation and reform.A clear judgment is made at the start of your response. However people believe that punishment and revenge is better that rehabilitating people and offenders. This is more beneficial because its better to teach people right and wrong instead of punishing and revenge.This is a simple evaluation, explaining why you prefer one approach over the other. This is because although some people may state that punishing is better it is not always the right way because depending on some other people punishing is worse, as it gets the offender to behave worse and increase their bad behavior.You are showing some understanding of the potential negatives of a punishment-focused system. However some may agree that source B is much better in a way to help others reflect over their mistakes - "To tackle the root causes of crime" - this enables that people want to find out what causes crime and what makes these offenders re-offend.You correctly identify and quote a key argument from Source B. Furthermore, when it states "simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour". This clears that everyone that being locked up can change someone behaviour.Another good point from Source B, supported by a quote. Some may disagree and think that punishment and retribution is a more beneficial way and would help with re-offending and also it state that 'long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated'.You are correctly identifying the arguments for punishment from Source A. This just proves that theyre showing their strictness and that no bad behaviour will be tolerated.This is a good, clear summary statement.
"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.A clear judgment is made at the start. Because Source A states that dangerous criminals should be locked away for justice and fairness.You are correctly identifying the main argument in Source A. Source B states that prisoners should be given a second chance and revert back to society in an attempt to turn offenders into law abiding citizens again.You are accurately summarising the alternative view from Source B. However Source B's idea can be dangerous and result in an increase of the crime rate because some criminals will simply just reoffend leading to increased stress on our justice system.This is the start of your evaluation, where you weigh the two ideas against each other. Source A is a more accurate representation of society and a more realistic approach in the eyes of the law. It will also keep more people safe.This is your concluding judgment, explaining why you favour Source A. However a con of this is that it will cost the government more money that could go towards the police force.This shows you are thinking about the wider implications of the argument.
"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."
Despite Source A having many strong arguments I mostly agree with Source B.A good introduction that shows you will be weighing both sides. This is because source B highlights the idea that when putting people in prison for longer and harsher periods it has less of an effect than a rehabilitative system. This is shown in source B when it is said that "A truly effective system should prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of the crime".You clearly state the main idea from Source B. This is a great point because the source highlights the flaws of a justice system thats sole focus is on punishing prisoners. This shows why source B is a good argument as the justice system that revolves around punishment is failing as it is proven that over 60% of prisoners who serve long sentences go on to reoffend.Excellent work. You are using a specific statistic here as 'own knowledge' to support the argument in the source. This is a high-level skill. Another reason why I agree that source B is an extremely strong point is because punishments that are majority focusing on rehabilitation and reform ensure that after a prisoner is released from prison they have a 20% higher chance of improving their lives after they are released.Another well-explained point from Source B. For example people who do community service are more likley to find a job after their sentence as they have proved to be useful to society which is backed up in source B where it is stated that "A community sentence can help individuals to pay back to society through unpaid work, this is seen to be far more effective and significantly cheaper than a prison sentence".This is another clear point from the source, explained in your own words. However a point in Source A which highlights a weakness in Source B is that "long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated making our communities safer".It is very good that you are now bringing in a counter-argument from Source A to show a balanced evaluation. This is an amazing point which also highlights a weakness in source B because keeping criminals in prison for longer increases the safety of citizens whereas in source B it fails to highlight the fact that although reoffending rates may decrease, reoffenders are not eliminated completely and letting known criminals roam free on the streets is more dangerous to citizens and could increase the rate of major crimes.This is excellent evaluation. You acknowledge the strength of Source A's point but then explain its limitations, weighing it against Source B. In conclusion I agree slightly more with source B because the although source A highlights problems in source B such as community safety, source B still allows criminals to have a better life and decreases reoffending rates even if not completely, and rehabilitative justice is also better for the economy as sending people to prison costs alot of money.A well-reasoned conclusion that weighs the final points.
"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."
Despite Source A being explained on the part of a justice system. I think Source B is better more cheap and there was proof over 2.6 million people who went to rehabiltion has become respectful citizens in the society.You are attempting to use own knowledge here, which is good, but the statistic seems fabricated. It's better to use facts you know are accurate. One reason why Source B is better is because of their amazing point of view. For example Source B states "A key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law abiding citizens". What makes this point strong is the logical and critical deep understand.You are correctly explaining the main argument from Source B. However although source B might have a amazing logical view but it is untruthful and may be unfair and unusual for example source A states: 'when a serious crime is committed, the public rightly expects a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence'.It's good that you are now addressing the arguments from Source A. This point is ethical and treats everyone fairly. When a criminal commits a crime and they locked up in prison he might reflect on his past action and might decided to change his action.This is a reasonable explanation of the argument for retribution. In my conclusion I thank both view are strong and makes a practical point of view but 60 to 70 percent of people might agree with Source B.This conclusion is a bit vague. Try to be more specific about why you have made your judgment.
"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."
After carefully considering both points, I ultimately agree with Source A. Whilst source B highlights the concept of justice and fairness, Source A trumps that by focusing on prison the justice systems main goal: power and authority.A good comparative introduction. I agree with source A to a large extent because it emphasises the fact that the justice system 'must be detering potential criminals'.You clearly explain the argument about deterrence from Source A. This is an amazing point because I know institutions like courts allow certain cases to be shared to the public to deter people from comitting the same or similar crime. Furthermore, a qualitative study National Survey tells us that 73% of crimes that reach court cases was retributed to the public.Using your own knowledge to support a source's argument is a great skill. While this specific statistic might be hard to verify, the intention is correct and shows you understand what's required. Source A claims that "soft options" undermine the publics trust. This means that they could lose public support altogether which would seriously affect them as they need to portray the states "power and authority".Another well-explained point from Source A. On the contrary, a person might strongly agree with source B because it "addresses the causes and works to prevent future victims by reforming the individual".It's good that you are now addressing the counter-argument from Source B. This is a good point because I know that the justice system spend large sums of money to keep a criminal which could waste state resources as opposed to helping to change criminals mindset and putting them back into society.You are using your own knowledge to evaluate this point. After reavaluating both these 2 strong points, I still believe that source A holds more merit as opposed to source B. Whilst source B is a strong argument, it fails to address the fact that rehabilitation doesn't work on certain criminals. Because of this, it fails in comparison to source A which highlights that restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims. Therefore, that is why I agree with Source A.This is a strong conclusion that weighs both sides before confirming your judgment.
"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 section B. This is because they use convincing and accurate methods to not only back up their answer but also to explain it.You make a clear judgment at the start. For example Source B talks about how the justice system should prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the main root to the problem. And they named ways that did not work and how it fails our society. I also agree with Source B as they try to see the good in prisoners and they try to attempt a different way of punishing, solving the issues with prisoners instead of only punishment. This shows that Section B has convincing and valid arguements as they think of other ways of helping prisoners with tax payers money instead of just wasting it all in a cell.You have correctly identified the main arguments of Source B. However, others may disagree with my view. This is because other individuals may not want to spend money help prisoners and just want them to suffer in prison due to them offending. For example an individual decided to drink at home due to a celebration... [long narrative about a drink driving incident]...This section is a narrative example. While it shows you are thinking about crime, it is not relevant to the specific arguments in the sources about sentencing policy.
"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."
Although Source A and B both make valid points I agree with Source B more effectively.A clear introduction that states your judgment. This is due to because locking someone up does not helping them reform from there actions and does not teach them how they are as a person. For example source B mentions how "the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates; our current approach is not working". This a great point because since the original strategy they are doing is not working they should consider using punishment and rehabilitation for certain crimes.You correctly identify a key piece of evidence from Source B. Another valid point Source B makes is "restorative justice" which is simply where the victims of the crime speak to the person who committed the crime.Another good point from Source B, explained clearly. This can be helpful as it does not just punish the crime but it addresses the causes and works to prevent the incident from happening again and on future victims.This is a good evaluative point, explaining the benefits of this approach. However this is not always the case because it may not always work out for both parties. It may be percieved as an "unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them."Excellent. You are now bringing in the counter-argument from Source A to create a balanced evaluation. This a stronger counter point because some victims may not want to be at uncomfortable meetings with those who harm as they may feel threatened and be traumatised from the event.This is your own reasoning, which adds weight to your evaluation. Another point that can be countered is "Community Sentence". For example it forces an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work and etc.This is a clear explanation of another argument from Source B. This is a good point because it is more cheaper and 'more effective' than a short prison sentence.Good evaluation, showing you understand the benefits. But Source A forgets to mention how some reoffenders may not learn from it as it is seen as "leniency" and so-called soft o...And again, you bring in the opposing view from Source A. This is a great technique.
"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."
Despite source B making valid and understandable points about rehabilitation, I mostly agree with Source A as their points are justified and well explained.A clear introduction setting out your overall judgment. I mostly agree with Source A because they state good examples like "If an offender knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend".You are using a quote well to support your point. I agree with this statement because when more people realise that offenders lose access to freedom and rights, (like being able to vote) they are less likely to reoffend and be restricted.This is a good attempt to bring in your own knowledge to develop the point about 'loss of freedom'. This is a key skill. I also agree when they say "community sentences often fail to work and many see them as a way of letting offenders off lightly".Another clear point from Source A, supported by a quote. I agree because this is an amazing point, and it seems to be the people that do community sentence or rehabilitation to reoffend and go back to where they started.This is your own reasoning which expands on the source's point. On the other hand I somewhat agree with source B when they say "The UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe". This point is true and it does show that some of our approaches are currently not working.It's good that you are addressing the opposing view. Although I disagree with Source B when they state "investing in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders". This is because offenders have free will and if they choose to commit a crime they shouldn't be given education or health treatment as there are others who need it more than them. Providing education for criminals is not a punishment but rather a treatment.This is a strong evaluative point where you directly challenge an argument from Source B using your own reasoning. Lastly I dissagree with Source B when they say "Simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behavior". I dissagree because when offenders are locked up it is showing them the lack of access they have in the free world and it also makes them reflect on their actions.This is another good example of directly challenging a point from Source B. Overall, I agree with Source A as they make amazing examples to back up their points.A clear concluding statement.