Some people believe that the personal information of violent criminals should be made available to the public. Others think that this information should be protected.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
It is a common belief that concealing criminals' personal information should be mandatory as a national policy to prevent discrimination towards their innocent families. However, I firmly believe that publicize criminals' identity more persuasive as it could protect our community.
To begin with, protecting offenders' personal information helps their families not to be discriminated against and unequally treated in society. In addition, this could highly victimize the criminals' families as people predispose to stay away from relatives who have relationships with them. For instance, research in a British university conducted by prominent professors indicated that a significantly high number of individuals who have relationships with criminals suicided due to stress and strains they endured from the discrimination of their society.
On top of that, many people believe that revealing the identities of criminals publicly encourage people to be aware of the pervasive threats around them. Moreover, making civilians acknowledge notorious criminals' information helps them to stay away from offenders, prepare better plans or self-protect tools and consequently reduce crime cases. For example, research in Vietnam was conducted to observe the changes in the community after a publishment of a government policy which is to require the national media to publicize the criminals' personal information. It pointed a fact that the crime rate has dwindled substantially and most citizens have raised their awareness towards crimes.
In conclusion, it would be a righteous way to keep the offenders' identities secret in order to eradicate the discrimination rate towards innocent people such as their relatives. However, I support the idea that government should make the identities of criminals known publicly due to the unparalleled benefit of protecting their citizens.
Holt Educational Consultant - / 13,873 4563
The writer has nto understood the discussion instructions. The prompt restatement is incomplete and so are the reasoning paragraphs. There are 2 opinions presented here. There are 2 publicly opposing presentations, both of which need to properly representated in the paraphrase. Otherwise, the prompt restatement cannot be considered an accurate representation of the original. Jumping immediately to the personal opinion means that the discussion paragraphs will be limited to an incomplete discussion as well. By not discussing both public opinions, the writer will be seen as having completed 2 out of 3 discussion requirements. The score provided will also be partial because of the missing discussion paragraph. The overall essay is considered under developed and cannot receive high marks in the TA score because of it. It will limit the passing capacity of the essay.