ESSAY INFORMATION:
Written by: Xuân Phi, 30/08/2021
Supported by: Ex-BC Examiner, 31/08/2021
Question: In some cases people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment. Do you agree or disagree?
(IELTS Academic – 28/08/2021)
This week’s post includes two essays – one marked 5.5 and one marked 8.0+; this is meant to make a comparison in terms of the use of vocabulary, essay structure and grammar between the two.
ANSWER (5.5):
There has been an argument about what to do to people who break the law. While some support punishments, others support warning criminals. In this essay, I will look at each side and then I will give my opinion.
On the one hand, there are times where a punishment is neccessary. First, punishment is meant to sop people breaking the law and becoming dangerous to other around them. In fact, When people know why they can be punished for breaking the law, they can start to obey the law and other people can feel saf. For example, people pay a fine when entering a house without the permission of the owner. Thus, it is to see the reason for punishing people to stop breaking the law.
On the other hand, it is better to warn people for the following reasons. First of all, When people are warned, they will know more of the law and why it is important. Therefore, these criminal will not commit any crime again and destroy the lives of other around them. For example, research has found that most British people were able to stop commiting more crimes because they were warned of their behaviour therefore they have not committed the same offences again and again. As a result, it is clear that a warning is better than a punishment.
In conclusion, although punishment can be good, a simple warning is also good to stop people from becoming criminals. In the future, once these policies are put in place, a society can become more safer and more aware.
Word count: 262
ANSWER (8.0+):
Recently, the debate surrounding the appropriate punishment for lawbreakers has been gaining significant traction. While some have advocated for sweeping punishments, others support giving warnings for minor offences. In my estimation, I agree with issuing a warning for low-level offences as sometimes legal punishments are disproportionate to the severity of the crime.
Admittedly, there are clear instances where punishments must be enforced. The inherent intent of any punishment, regardless of how harsh it might be, is to dissuade potential criminals from breaking the law. Therefore, when citizens respect the law due to fear of punishment, society as a whole is safer. To give an example, in maintaining a safe and steady flow of traffic, speed limits are put in place on most roads to prevent speeding and potential accidents. When a person commits a speeding offence, that person can be punished by the revocation of their driving licence to deter them from driving recklessly and by extension becoming a danger to society. Thus, it is understandable why some would want to advocate for imposing punishments unilaterally on offenders as a form of strong deterrence from future criminal activity.
However, the case for applying a stern warning in some instances is stronger since it can be more effective in preventing crimes. By educating low-level offenders about the grave consequences of continuing to commit affronts to the law, they will come out more knowledgeable of the law and its role in keeping people safe from harm. Therefore, these offenders will be less likely to recommit criminal offences and consequently jeopardise the lives of others. To cite an example, a survey conducted by University College London in 2012 has found that the majority of British people who were cited for public intoxication and were subsequently warned of their behaviour have not committed the same offence again. From this data, it is clear that a warning is stronger and more humane than a legal punishment.
In conclusion, although enforcing punishments has its place in instilling respect for the law, I would firmly contend that sometimes a simple yet stern warning is more than enough to discourage people from breaking the law. In the future, once these rehabilitative measures are enacted, a society can become simultaneously safer and more aware.
Word count: 375
WORD LIST:
|
ENGLISH |
TIẾNG VIỆT |
|
Has been gaining significant traction |
Trở nên phổ biến hoặc được nhiều người quan tâm |
|
Sweeping punishments |
Hình phạt có ảnh hưởng lớn, rộng |
|
Disproportionate to the severity of the crime |
Không tương xứng với độ nghiêm trọng của hành vi phạm tội |
|
Inherent intent of any punishment |
Mục đích vốn có của bất kì hình phạt nào |
|
Dissuade potential criminals |
Khuyên can tội phạm tiềm năng |
|
Revocation of one’s driving licence |
Thu hồi bằng lái |
|
Deter sb from doing sth |
Ngăn cản ai đó làm gì đó (bằng cách răn đe) |
|
A form of strong deterrence |
Một hình thức răn đe mạnh mẽ |
|
Imposing punishments unilaterally |
Áp dụng hình phạt một cách tự ý |
|
A stern warning |
Lời cảnh cáo nghiêm khắc |
|
Grave consequences |
Hậu quả nghiêm trọng |
|
Commit affronts to the law |
Làm việc gì đó xúc phạm tới pháp luật |
|
Knowledgeable |
Hiểu biết |
|
Jeopardise the lives of others |
Gây nguy hiểm cho tính mạng người khác |
|
Cited for public intoxication |
Yêu cầu hầu tòa do say rượu, gây mất trật tự công cộng |
|
Instilling respect for the law |
Truyền đạt sự tôn trọng cho luật pháp |
| Rehabilitative measures |
Biện pháp cải tạo |
Bạn có thể tham khảo thêm:
