Some people believe that there should be a fixed punishment 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 views and give your own opinion.
Although there is no doubt that crime must be punished, it is important to consider which type of panel system is most appropriate. While some believe that a system of fixed sentences should be adopted, I support the view that punishments should be based on motives and circumstances.
Those who advocate implementing a judicial process of set punishments may argue that this would make criminal trials more efficient. For example, once a jury has decided a particular defendant is guilty of murder, the judge need only refer to the 'punishment of murder' to sentence that person to life imprisonment. The benefit of this is that a huge amount of time would be saved in court, thus leading to significant financial savings. As a result, more money could be spent on healthcare, education and welfare.
Nevertheless, I would argue that the above system is too rigid, and a process of 'flexible' punishments is much fairer. The latter punishment system, which many countries use, leaves more room for compassion toward offenders who have been blackmailed or manipulated. For instance, under this system, if a thief is able to prove that he had been bullied into committing his crime, he should be sentenced to less prison time than a thief who had been motivated by greed. If, instead, fixed punishments were implemented, this sense of fairness and morality would be lost.
In conclusion, while a legal system of fixed punishments might be more cost-effective and efficient, a procedure of assessing crimes based on circumstances and motives is more just, and justice, in my view, is quintessential.
Please, I need your feedback and what IELTS band score should one expect?
Holt Educational Consultant - / 11,562 3753
@near9 You did explain 2 opinions in your essay. But you did not discuss the opinions as dictated by the original prompt. The discussion instruction calls for you to discuss 3 points:
1. The pro side
2. The con side
3. Your personal opinion
What I saw in your essay were only 2 discussion points:
1. The pro side
2. Your personal opinion
This means missed that you totally missed a full paragraph discussion in relation to the con side. Sadly, your statement / opinion of support for the con side would have received a better score had you completed the 3 body paragraph discussion requirement.
Additionally, your paraphrased prompt does not accurately paraphrase the original prompt and discussion method either. Never present your opinion in that portion. These isn't room to develop your response. That is the academic rule regarding paraphrasing in these exams.
It is because of the missing paragraph and the mistake in the paraphrasing that this essay will not be able to score higher than a 5. Always make sure that all of the prompt requirements are satisfied in the essay before you submit it. Count the number of discussions in the body paragraph that are required and make sure you have the same number of discussion points in the essay. That will at least make your response task accurate and improve your score in that section.