nguyetanhht
New member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
Some people believe that there should be fixed punishments for each type of crime. Others, however , argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.(Cambridge practice tests for IELTS 7)
This is my essay:
Crime and its related problem are a hotly-debated issue today. Up to now, punishment is considered to be one of the best solution to reduce crime rate. However, the thing is that whether the punishment should be fixed or be dependent on certain circumstances and motivations?
To begin with, some people advocate the view that each type of crime is essentially treated the same, no matter how it was committed. They claim that the consequences be given priority over the action itself with regard to crime.Moreover, this way of punishment would simplify the trials without reducing their effectiveness.
On the other hand, the others are in favour of a flexible treatment. As a matter of fact, each crime has its own circumstance. That is to say, a wide range of crimes committed by mistake or self-defence can not be associated with brutal ones. It is crucial that different motivations be taken into considerations so that the punishment would be equal.
It seems to me that the second approach to crime punishment is preferable. Although the consequence is one major respect of crime, punishment needs tobe equal. Penalising a person, it is clear, is not a simple task.In addition, the purpose of punishing is to help people learn their own lessons, rather than decline their life. That is why trials have been applied all over the world to find the truth in each circumstance.
In conclusion, i agreed that there should be certain level of punishment for each type of crime, which is official stated in laws. Nonetheless, to reach the fundamental purpose of laws, circumstance and motivation are also necessarily considerated.
I'm grateful to any comments or correcting for my essay.I'll take th IELTS exam in 2 weeks. I wonder at which level i am :roll:
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.(Cambridge practice tests for IELTS 7)
This is my essay:
Crime and its related problem are a hotly-debated issue today. Up to now, punishment is considered to be one of the best solution to reduce crime rate. However, the thing is that whether the punishment should be fixed or be dependent on certain circumstances and motivations?
To begin with, some people advocate the view that each type of crime is essentially treated the same, no matter how it was committed. They claim that the consequences be given priority over the action itself with regard to crime.Moreover, this way of punishment would simplify the trials without reducing their effectiveness.
On the other hand, the others are in favour of a flexible treatment. As a matter of fact, each crime has its own circumstance. That is to say, a wide range of crimes committed by mistake or self-defence can not be associated with brutal ones. It is crucial that different motivations be taken into considerations so that the punishment would be equal.
It seems to me that the second approach to crime punishment is preferable. Although the consequence is one major respect of crime, punishment needs tobe equal. Penalising a person, it is clear, is not a simple task.In addition, the purpose of punishing is to help people learn their own lessons, rather than decline their life. That is why trials have been applied all over the world to find the truth in each circumstance.
In conclusion, i agreed that there should be certain level of punishment for each type of crime, which is official stated in laws. Nonetheless, to reach the fundamental purpose of laws, circumstance and motivation are also necessarily considerated.
I'm grateful to any comments or correcting for my essay.I'll take th IELTS exam in 2 weeks. I wonder at which level i am :roll:
