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 where the justice System Should Focus on rehabilitation and reform.You begin with a clear, but undeveloped, statement of agreement with Source B. this is because while Punishment has a role, I belive that the time you spend in jail should be productive and you should be doing something to help you when you get out and not being stuck in a cell for a amount of time.This is a reasonable evaluative point, but it's expressed as a personal belief rather than a structured argument. The core concept of justice and fairness must extend to creating a safer society in the long run which can be achieved by reducing the number of people who re-offend.This is a direct paraphrase from Source B, showing good understanding of its main argument. this can be done by investing in education, mental health treament, and addiction support for offenders.You are clearly explaining the arguments made within Source B here. All those listed help offenders make a better life for themselves when they leave meaning that when they get a job and become a better version of themselves they wonk re-offend.This is a good explanation of the intended outcome of rehabilitation as described in the source. a community sentence, for example, can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work.You are correctly identifying and explaining another key argument from Source B. This is more effective and cheaper than just sending them to prison.This shows you understand the source's argument about the benefits of community sentences over prison. I belive a smart justice system doesn't just punish the crime; it adresses the causes and works to prevent future victims by reforming the individual.This is a simple evaluative statement showing your agreement. simply locking up people in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behavour and fails our society.This is another accurate summary of a point from Source B. making them lean their mistakes will help all offenders to not commit the same mistake again and the amount of reoffenders rates in europe will decrease.This is a simple evaluative comment that links back to the idea of reducing reoffending.
"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 I agree with Source B I also understand where Source A is coming coming from, I also belive that offenders who commit very bad crimes or unworthy of forgiveness, should be given a sentence that reflects the severity of the offence.The opening is confused. You state you agree with Source B but then immediately start arguing for Source A's position. For exemplu If a person commits murder they should'nt be given a community sentence since we need to think about the victim and their family.This is a point that aligns with Source A's argument about retribution and justice for victims. the offender commited emotional trauma as well to the family and the law should ensure a sense of Justice and Fairness.This shows you understand the concept of justice for victims mentioned in Source A. Schemes like restorative justice place an unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them.This is a direct paraphrase from Source A, showing you have read and understood this point. and the offenders might re-offend because they got off easy which is not what we want.This is a simple evaluative comment, but it's not well-explained. IF a offender knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend keeping our society safe.This is another clear point taken directly from Source A. Also leniency and so called 'soft options' undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims.You are listing several points from Source A here without developing them. The primay goal must be to deter potential criminals.This is the core argument for deterrence from Source A. In concursion I still agree with Source A since I belive certain criminals deserve a second chance especially if the crime is small like stealing.Your conclusion contradicts your opening statement and most of your answer. This makes the overall argument very unclear. Since having a record will stop some jobs from exeping you but having expirence from working in jail will help you allor in the outside world.This final point is very confused and seems to argue for rehabilitation (Source B), which contradicts your stated conclusion.
"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 having strong points and clear examples Source A has strange examples to back up their point as they're able to see the consequence of not focusing on punishment and retribution.This is an unclear opening statement. You need to state which writer you agree with most. For example source A states that long tough criminal sentences sends a clear message that crime will not be tolerated.You are correctly identifying a key argument from Source A. This is a strong point because if there were to be shorter sentences crime rates would've increased due to lack of time in sentences giving people the opportunity to reopend.This is a simple evaluative comment, but it needs more development. Why is it a strong point? However what it fails to say was how some people may have no choice in situations as they're despecte and needy.This is an interesting evaluative point, but it's not clearly explained. What situations are you referring to? Source A also states community sentences don't work evenly as it is seen as a way to let offenders off lightly.This shows you have understood another of Source A's arguments. I disagree with this view as there are factor like apionating and devediving that allow the offender to lower their sentence if they see fit in it al the offender may have had valid reasons as to why they did what they did.This is an attempt at evaluation, but the point about 'apionating and devediving' is unclear. On the other hand source B believes that the justice syste should focus on rehabilitation and reform.You are now correctly explaining the argument of Source B. I personally disagree this as this may allow offenders to reokend however some may disagree as it tackles root causes and helps offenders while is cheap and affordable to do.This is a personal opinion that isn't developed or justified. In source B it states that locking up people does little to change their behaviour and fails in society.This shows you've understood the source's criticism of the current system. This is what they failed to include is that prison is a way of keeping the public safe from Danger and stops people from affecting the public in a negative way.This is a good critical point, identifying something Source B has missed. Source B also speaks about how they can make an individual to pay back society through unpaid work while having them attend programs to right their behaviour.You are explaining another aspect of Source B's argument here. It could be argued that it goes against their humanl right of the right to work however community service may be the type of punishment fit for the crime they've done so they can come back into society without any troubles.This is a confusing attempt at evaluation. It seems to raise a human rights issue but doesn't explain it clearly. Source B supports the work of Restorative justice and how it can prevent reoffend.Good identification of another of Source B's arguments. In conclusion I believe Source A is the stronger argument as their solutions will surely allow offenders to be less likely to reoffend due to the harsh punishments compared to source B who has a more civil approch giving offenders the opportunity to reoffend.Your conclusion states agreement with Source A, but your reasoning is quite generic and doesn't fully weigh the arguments you've discussed.
"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 displaying good ideas on the main focus of sentencing offenders is through punishment and retribution, I agree with Source B on its ideas that sentencing offenders through hardship and punishment isn't solving a effective sentencing but need to truly see how a justice system can helpful through rehabillitation and changing views.A good start, making a clear judgment and summarising your overall reasoning. In Source B it says to create a 'effective sentencin justice system we need to "tackle root problems causes of crime".You are correctly identifying a key argument from Source B. In order to acheive this result rather than spending £40,000-£50,000 yearly on accomidation of prisoners yearly we should invest this money into the gentrification of terraced neighbourhood & a improved education.Excellent use of own knowledge. You've introduced the cost of prison to develop the source's argument. This is an amazing point as main reasons why offenders commit fits is due to their upbringing, solving this problem people wont have to resort to crime in the first place.This is good evaluation. You are explaining WHY tackling root causes is a strong argument. Another reason why Source B is more effective is due to their stance on community service being a effective way to sentence offenders.You identify another argument from Source B about community service. By giving offenders 30-400 hours of unpaid labour it gives of a forgiving tone to the justice system and change their perception of crime knowing the world isn't entirly a bad place.Good use of specific own knowledge (the hours of unpaid labour) to support the point. This is a good reason & point as during community service its able to give back to the community such as cleaning streets, removing grappiti of walls, so as they are contemplating on their positive future they are also helping the community become a better place.This is a well-explained point that develops the argument from the source. Another form rehabillitaion comes through restorative justice, rather than placing an offender in jail they would be able to speak to the victims and both gaining inner peace also an offender see realising the misery created will influence them not to commit crimes in the future.You are clearly explaining the argument for restorative justice from Source B. In source B, a point was said on the topic of "retribution" and not letting offenders going through the "soft option". This is a bad point as a majority of offenders are reoffenders so perhaps retribution is ineffective and taking the "soft option" is effective in the long run.Here you attempt to critique Source B, but the point is slightly confused. You seem to be referencing Source A's ideas while discussing Source B. This is as Source B points out their fundamental purpose of justice ensures a 'justice and fairness'. Criminals whom are restricted of their freedom which they are entitled to under the Human Rights Act of 1998. The idea of their fundamental purpose of sentencing is for imprisonment this opposes their freedom and dont feel a sense of "Fairness" at all.This is a confusing section. You attribute an argument about human rights to Source B, but it feels more like a counter-argument to Source A's focus on punishment. Another infective point is "detering criminals".You correctly identify Source A's argument on deterrence. Although it is effective of detering criminalls, people realize a unsafe unpair justice system as an acid strict justice system and the world we live in having a rude and impolite anirud towards police officers that enforce these laws. To conclude, I still agree with source B as I believe the real purpose of sentencing is to realise there is a better world then the world they live in and being able to do community service will help them relise that, now a strict prison sentence.This is a very confused final paragraph that doesn't lead to a clear conclusion.
"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."
As Source A maintains an arguement which focuses on the root route of crime while suggesting a community service.This opening is a little confusing. You seem to be describing both sources at once. Try to be clearer. Community service allows prisioners to better the community while also learning skills that could be used one released.This is a good explanation of a point from Source B. Alternanuley, Source A argues prisionment is the best way to redue crimes. Source A also argues the public have the right to be protected by criminals and have them locked up.You clearly identify two key arguments from Source A: imprisonment as punishment and protection of the public. Additionally, the source argues it is a crucial way to reinforce power and authority.This is another accurate point from Source A regarding the state's authority. This is a reasonable arguement because punishment in the UK is to deter others from commiting crime and to reflect the countries values.This is a good attempt at evaluation, explaining why Source A's argument is reasonable. Additionally I know this arguement is valid because punishment such as minimum sentencing deters people from commiting crime as it takes your freedom, ruins your reputation and your future when going for jobs.Good use of own knowledge to develop the idea of deterrence. However source A fails to recognize the consequences of prision facilities. Within each pnsion between £40,000-£50,000 is spent on each prisioner annually.Excellent evaluation. You are now critiquing Source A by using your own knowledge about the cost of prisons. Prisons that have up to thousands of prisoner providing shelter and food. This money is reducted from tax which prisiones do not pay one in prison. This becames a waste as the money could doesn't serve the tax payers and could of been spent on education, transport etc.This is a strong evaluative point, explaining the economic argument against mass incarceration. Essentially I agree more with source B as it dwells on the circumstance that causes people to commit crime. However source B maintains an arguement that is mostly one sided.This is a clear conclusion, but it's a little underdeveloped and seems to contradict your earlier praise for Source A's arguments.
"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 very key points on why we should focus on Rehabilitation, Source A really makes some better points on how focusing on punishment has more of an impact on society.A good opening that sets up a comparison between the two sources and states a preference for Source A. Source A argues that the justice system should focus on punishment and retribution. They argue this because being less lenient on punishment by giving out long tough prison sentences will send a clear message to the rest of society that crime wont be tolerated.You are accurately summarising the main arguments of Source A. This is a very strong point because other countries that are less lenient on punishment and does not include mitigating factors have a lower crime rate because they use these tough prison sentences as an example to the rest of society.This is a good evaluative point, supported by some own knowledge (though the link isn't fully explained). However on the other hand Source B argues that the justice System should focus on rehabilitation and reform.You correctly identify the core argument of Source B about rehabilitation. They argue that since the UK has one of the highest reossending rates in Europe we should invest in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for reoffenders.This is a clear explanation of Source B's point about reoffending rates and tackling root causes. While this is a good point, this point is not as strong because Source B has forgotten to consider that criminals may be more likely to reossend due to the fact that they arent being punished harshly for their actions and might reossend as a more as a result.This is an interesting attempt to critique Source B, arguing that it overlooks the reason for reoffending. Source A further arges that the justice System should focus on punishment and retribution by stating that schemes like restorative justice does not work.You return to Source A, explaining its view on restorative justice. Source A argues this due to victims having to engage with the person that harmed them. This is a strong point as forcing victims to meet up the person that harmed them may trigger trauma or make them uncomfortable.Good explanation of why Source A opposes restorative justice. Source B disagrees further and argues that we should focus on rehabilitation because Responsibilities is a key of the justice system. Source B argues that community service can make offenders pay back to society by doing unpaid work and making them attend programs to adress their behavior.You correctly describe Source B's argument for community sentences. However this point is not strong due to the fact that forcing criminals to do work is a breach of their human rights and unpaid work is essentially modern day slavery.This is a very unusual and unsupported evaluation. Claiming community service is 'modern day slavery' is a significant assertion that requires much more justification. In conclusion while Source B makes good points on why we should focus on rehabilitation it ends up being weaker because it ends up dehumanising individuals both victims and criminals. Source A however shows how being less lenient on punishment can make a bigger impact on reducing more crime rates and reoffenders.Your conclusion is quite confusing. You appear to argue against your opening statement, suggesting a focus on rehabilitation is 'weaker' because it is 'dehumanising', which is a difficult point to sustain.
"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 B makes equally valid points as Source A, I would have to agree more with Source A.A good opening that makes a clear judgment in favour of Source A. This is because they mention that leniency and so-called 'soft options' undermine Public trust and devalue the suffering of victims.You are clearly explaining Source A's argument about 'soft options' and their impact on public trust. This means that if offenders commit a crime there would be a possibility that their sentence may be reduced, under circumstances such as being young.This is a reasonable attempt to develop the source's point with a simple example. This would most likely lose Public trust as if people aren't being punished accordingly to their crimes not only would it lose Public trust, younger people may do those crimes as they know that the consequences won't be severe.Good evaluation, as you are explaining the consequences of the point made in the source. However, one flaw is mentioned in Source A, as it mentions that they are less likely to reoffend which is not true as in Source B it claims that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe.Excellent evaluation. You are directly weighing a point from Source A against a counter-point from Source B (using own knowledge). Comparitavely, in Source B they're in full support of community sentencing as they claim it's often far more effective and significantly more cheaper than a short prison sentence.You are now switching to explain the arguments of Source B fairly. One reason why I would agree with this is because it saves taxpayers money that can contribute to something else such as healthcare, saving millions that would normally contribute to prisons.This is a good point of evaluation, showing you understand the economic argument and agree with it. However, one reason why I disagree is that people may see this as a way of letting offenders get off lightly.This is a good piece of counter-evaluation, showing you can see both sides of the argument. You are weighing the economic benefit against public perception. This means that offenders are more likely to re-offend if punishments aren't severe, therefore making prisons a more reliable and trustworthy method of punishing criminals.This is a simple but clear evaluative comment that links back to your main argument. In conclusion, I would have to wholeheartedly agree with Source A as they give clear and supportive points, whereas Source B lacked evidence to support arguements.Your conclusion clearly re-states your judgment, but the reasoning ('give clear and supportive points') is too generic.
"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 more with source B as it gives strong and valid points and backing to their statement with clear information and evidence, unlike source A with which only focuses on punishment and doesnt take in account of other factors.A clear introductory statement that establishes your overall judgment in favour of Source B. For example, in Source B it says that rehabilitation must be prioritised to tackle the root causes of crime.You are accurately identifying a key argument from Source B. This is a strong point as I know from my own knowledge that crime can influence youth on doing more crime, and tackling the root cause of crime through rehabilitation will impact our youth and future of society positivley.Excellent evaluation. You are using your own knowledge about youth crime to explain why this argument is so important. Furthermore this is a good point from Source B as it also takes in account of peoples human rights and the moral right of a second change.This is another well-explained point from Source B, linked to the concept of rights. on the other hand Source A says that restorative justice places an unfair burden on the victems and the offender wont learn anything.You are now correctly identifying a counter-argument from Source A. This is a weak and unplanned point, as I know from my own knowledge that restorative justice is effective as it helps the victim and the offender understand eachothers actions.This is a strong piece of evaluation, as you are using your own knowledge to directly challenge and critique Source A's claim. Furthermore the offender will feel emotional pain and regret, making them less likey to reoffend. This improves social cohesion and society, both key words.This is a sophisticated evaluative point, explaining the deeper psychological and social benefits of restorative justice. Another reason why I agree with source B more is because it says that community service is an effective way for the offender to pay back society.You identify another argument from Source B, focusing on community service. This is a strong and clear point as this is an effective way to deal with firstime offenders, not nessasary to send them to prison.This is a clear and well-reasoned evaluation of the argument. On the other hand, source A says that a sentance has to be severe so it can send a clear message.You effectively contrast this with an opposing view from Source A. This is a weak point as Source A fails to take in account of mitigating and agrivating factors, this means that under specific conditions the crime may not need severe punishment.Excellent critical evaluation of Source A. You identify a weakness (it doesn't account for mitigating factors) and explain it clearly. Another reason why I agree with Source B more is because it says that we need to invest less in prisons and more in education, mental health and treatment.You clearly explain another of Source B's arguments about investment. This is a good point as I know from my own knowledge that £50,000 of tax is funded to maintain a single prisoner. Investing less in prisons can lower tax, positively impacting society, and investing in better causes may help takle root problems of crime.Fantastic integration of detailed own knowledge (prison costs) to support your evaluation of Source B's point. On the other hand, Source A says that if an offender starts to fear the punishment, they are less likely to reoffend.You fairly present a counter-argument from Source A about deterrence. This is a weak and incorrect point due to 2 points. The first being the intent to cause fear is inhumane and second, I know from my own knowledge that the UK has the highest percentage of reoffending rates in the UK, that being 60%. This proves source A is incorrect.Excellent evaluation. You label the point as weak and then use specific own knowledge (reoffending rates) to disprove it directly. In conclusion, I agree more with source B as it takes in account of strong evidence and laws, alongside with accurate information and evidence. I disagree with source A as it gives unplanned points, doesnt take in account of other factors and it contradicts offical statistics.A very strong and well-supported conclusion that summarises your key arguments effectively.
"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 making and explaining various strong points and how focusing on punishment could help the victim find a sense of peace knowing those who harmed them no longer remain in society, I agree more with Source B as it truly focuses on helping the offenders rehabilitate and giving them another chance to help change.A good opening that weighs both sources before stating a clear judgment for Source B. One reason why I agree more with Source B is it states a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime.You are accurately explaining Source B's main argument. this is an exceptional point as many offenders who have commited crimes previously are most likely to commit another crime as they may not of been given the opportunity to help rehabilitate.This is a strong evaluation, explaining why the point is exceptional and showing your understanding of criminal behaviour. We also known that keeping individuals in prison can cost up to 50,000 per year which not only is it extremely expensive it is not worth it. This money could be used toward's education, healthcare etc. and actually go to something that would benefit society as a whole.Excellent use of specific own knowledge (the cost of prison) to develop and support the argument against a punishment-focused system. Another reason I agree more with Source B is it also states that 'restorative justice' can be a powerful tool, that give victims a voice and forces offenders to confront the real world impact of their action.You are now explaining another of Source B's key arguments. This is an extremely strong point as not only does it help the offenders realise their actions have consequences it could help them in the future to avoid doing these actions again and harming others.This is a very strong and well-developed evaluation of the point, explaining its psychological benefits. whereas in Source A it focuses on just locking them up in prison for a long amount of time and hoping they have changed their behaviour.This is a good comparative point, contrasting Source B's approach with the implied approach of Source A. On the other hand, Source A makes a point when it says, "if an offendor knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likey to reoffend."You are now fairly presenting and evaluating an argument from Source A. This is a weak point as it fails to mention the fact that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates, therefore meaning that if the justice system focuses on punishment it will not benefit society as it is clearly not working.Excellent critical evaluation. You have identified the point from the source and then immediately used your own knowledge (of reoffending rates) to prove that it is weak. However, Source A makes a strong point when it states 'the fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law'. This is a strong point as it sends a message to criminals that breaking the law will not be tolerated and they will be punished for it, reducing the chance of them reoffending in the future.You are acknowledging a strong point from Source A, which shows balanced analysis. Overall, disregarding the fact that Source A managed to secure some strong points on why the justice system should focus on punishment, I agree more with Source B as it focuses on giving offenders another chance at being a benefit to society and not a burden.This is a good, clear conclusion that summarises your overall 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 source B more this is because although source A makes a point that all crimes should lead to a jailment for a person to recive justice and fairness, prisions are expensive to build and cost around 40,000-50,000 each.You start with a clear judgment and provide initial reasoning. and if more people should be in jail for minor crimes more of tax payers money would be spent on building jails and less on schools and services which could be useful to a civillian.This is excellent evaluation, using own knowledge about prison costs to immediately critique Source A. On the other hand source B talks about how puting people in jail dosent change their behavior and once realsed they are more likley to reoffend.You are correctly explaining Source B's argument about the ineffectiveness of prison. This is evident as in the source it says how the uk has one of the highest reoffending rates.Good use of information from the source to support this point. And having resorative justice can also let the victim have their voice heard too to recive the justice they deserve.You clearly explain the argument for restorative justice from Source B. this also adresses the problem but is also more effective than puting offenders into jail as it allows them to prevent reoffending and insted reform the individual.This is a strong piece of evaluation where you weigh the two approaches and explain why B is more effective. This is much less costly but also allows the offender to have a second chance and feel less guilty for their crime.You continue your evaluation by linking back to the cost argument. In source B it also speaks about community service which is a good alternative for jail as the offender gives back to society by doing unwanted jobs and is also adressed about their behavior.You correctly identify another of Source B's arguments about community service. this is good as it not only teaches the offender valuble skills for the outside world with society for employment but also makes the criminal reflect about their behavior of what is right and wrong in society and moral rights of todays society.This is a good, developed evaluation of the benefits of community service. Again source A also says has deter potential criminals.You now turn to address an argument from Source A. but it is most likley going to make which could be seen as discrimination as 'potential' coud be steorypical which encourages people to non commit crimes.This is a very interesting and critical evaluation of Source A's point, suggesting that it could lead to stereotyping and discrimination.
"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 sounce A creates a fair arguement, I agree more with source B, Source A argues punishment is required to decrease crime rates. I agree more with source B than A because source B has a strong arguement that is for the betterment of the community.A clear judgment that is immediately supported by evidence from the source and a strong evaluative statement. Source A suggest Rehabihitahon tackles the root of crime.You are clearly explaining Source B's core argument about tackling the root of crime. This tackles the physcological aspect of criminal. I know this is a problem within the criminals in the UK as 50-80% of crimes within london is a result of peoples circumstances growing up such as living in working dass areas such as Peckham were drug crimes are common.Excellent use of specific own knowledge to develop and support the source's point. You provide a statistic and a geographical example. Additionally, source B argues the importance of restorative justice claiming it has a bigger impact compared to impritonment.You correctly identify and explain Source B's point on restorative justice. Restorative Justice gives criminals a chance to come to terms with the magnitude of damage their acions have.This is a good explanation of how restorative justice works in practice. Although this is a strong point, restorance justice can also trigger the victims trauma as it makes them relive a horrific expirence.This is a sophisticated piece of evaluation, as you acknowledge a potential weakness or counter-argument (the impact on victims) before moving on. I know that the government has to spend £40000-£50000 each year just for the maintainence & the livelihood of one prisoner. Which is absolutely horrible for the long-term.Excellent evaluation that links the high cost of prison to the argument for rehabilitation. as "the UK has one of the highest reoffeading rates in Europe".You are effectively using a direct quote from Source B to support your argument. so the amount of criminals will only increase if the root causes aren't tackled and the sustainability of using prisioners to house thousands of criminals is just a completely unreliable and outdated system.This is a very strong and well-reasoned evaluative point against the argument for punishment. The reformation of an individual is also dependent on how an offender may feel after committing a crime, giving them guilt and also deep sadnesses. This can be combatted through the UK's restorative justice system, "giving victims a voice and forcing offenders to confront the real-world impact of their actions" and this gives these offenders a chance for forgiveness which decreases reoffending rates. This another amazing point fource B brings up.You are explaining another key argument from Source B with detail. However, some may argue that fource A is correct and more justiced as it says that the "fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law", which "ensures a sence of Justice and Fairness for victims".You now fairly present the argument from Source A. Although this point is great at expressing the purpose of punishing offenders, it still does not recognise that punishments only may make offenders more likely to commit crimes as it is important to try and show offenders that the world and society would be less strict on them only if they followed the rules, punishing does not do this.Excellent critical evaluation. You acknowledge the merit of the point before exposing its weakness. This lack of realisation in the source is further reinyorced when it says that "Long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated". This weak point fails to understand that most reoffenders do not care or are already used to prison circumstances, so they simply aren't bothered by returning to prison.This is another strong critique of Source A's argument on deterrence, explaining why it is flawed. This is exemplified as I know that the majority of crimes committed are from reoffenders.This is supported by your own knowledge. In conclusion, Despite the strengthe that Source A brings up such as the great importance of the punishment of criminals to "prevent them from causing further harm", I mostly agree with fource B as it fally sustains strong points such as the tackling of the root causes of crime and rehabilitation of offenders.A powerful and well-supported conclusion that weighs the arguments and justifies your final 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."
Both writers discuss what the main purpose of the Justice System should be, but they have very different views. Source A argues that punishment and retribution are the most effective ways to maintain order, while source B believes rehabilitation and reform creates a safer and fairer society in the long term.A good introduction that accurately summarises the positions of both sources. I mostly agree with source B, because it focuses on tackling the cause of crime rather than just punishing offenders.You make a clear and well-reasoned judgment in favour of Source B. The writer argues that "locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little change to their behaviour".This quote from the source is used effectively to set up your point. which seems realistic because if offenders leave prison without learning new skills or addressing issues like addiction or mental health, they are more likely to reoffend.This is a strong evaluative comment, explaining why Source B's argument is realistic and convincing. source B's emphasis on "education, mental health, treatment and addiction support" shows a more constructive approach that helps people become law-abiding citizens.You are clearly explaining the key arguments of Source B. This benefits both offenders and society.This summarises the benefit of the approach well. However, source A makes a strong point that punishment can deter crime and reassure the public that justice is being done.You are now presenting the counter-argument from Source A fairly and accurately. The idea that "long, tough prison sentence, send a clear message" appeal, to people's sense of fairness and safety.You've correctly identified the appeal of Source A's argument to the public. Yet, I think this view is too focused on revenge rather than results.This is a good critical evaluation of Source A, identifying a key weakness in its focus. The writer dismisses "restorative justice" as being too soft.This shows you are engaging with different aspects of Source A. but evidence suggests it can actually reduce reoffending by making offenders face the real impact of their actions.Excellent evaluation. You use your own knowledge to directly challenge and refute the point made in Source A. Overall, while I understand source A's argument about deterrance and fairness, I agree more with source B because rehabilitation not only reforms individuals but also prevents future crimes, making society safer in the long run.This is a very clear, well-supported conclusion that weighs both sides and summarises your final judgment effectively.
"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 AB as it explains strong point on the purpose of the Justice System and how victims may seek peace knowing that the people who caused them harm are punished.Your opening statement is very confused. You say you agree with 'Source AB' and then start describing points from both sources without a clear argument. Source B also talks about other punishments rather than automatically going to prison. For example community sentencing, being able to payback society through unpaid work. Or fines being able to give back some money for reperations. And using restorative justice. This is effective as it gives offenders a chance to ask for forgiveness making them feel better and persuade also the victim themselves.You are correctly identifying several arguments from Source B here. However Source A talks about putting people in prison no matter the crime. The problem with this is However, whilst source B talks about the effectiveness of restorative justice prioritising rehabilitation and how sentencing effects people. Source A talks about putting people in prison no matter the crime.You are now describing the argument from Source A. The problem with this is prisons cost a lot of money around £40000 to provide food, bedding and maintaining the livelihood of inmates.This is an attempt at evaluation using own knowledge, but it's not clearly linked to either source's argument. It could also effect migrating factors. It could also effect migrating factor such as age, criminal record, the crime committed and how if somebody was harmed.This point about 'migrating factors' is unclear and irrelevant to the question. In conclusion prisons should only be for serious crimes like murder instead of crimes that don't cause harm. Ways to avoid it happen is having better survaillance, educating children and young offenders and telling them about restorative justice. And those in prisons to prioritise mental wellbeing.This conclusion offers a simple judgment but it isn't well-supported by the disorganised points made in the main body of the answer.
"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."
Initially, I wholeheartedly agree with Source B.This opening is a little confusing as you initially state you agree with B, but the rest of the paragraph focuses on B. Source B focuses on Justice and Fairness along with rehabilitation and reform.This shows a clear understanding of Source B's focus. As a society we are known to not be always perfect in what we demand.This is an interesting evaluative point, but it's not fully explained. Some go in prision without a reflection and understanding the wrong doing of there crimes end up re-offending.You are using Source A's ideas here to critique the outcome of a punishment-focused system. The UK is known as one of the highest reoffending rates in europe, with their current approach not working.Good use of information from the source, combined with your own knowledge. To introducing rehabilitation and investing in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for reoffenders can reduce offenders re-offending and turn them into law bidding citizens.You are correctly explaining the solutions proposed by Source B. Rehabilitation like community sentence forces an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work, this could include litter picking around neighbourhoods. This could be effective as it addresses the behaviour and makes the offender guilty for there wrong doings & forcing offenders to confront the real-world impacts their actions.You clearly explain the arguments for community sentences and restorative justice from Source B. I fundermentally agree with source B but Source A argues a similarly but less effective point in my opinion.You are now shifting to a critical evaluation of Source B, which is a good skill. Source A focuses on punishment and retribution.You accurately summarise Source A's position. Punishment is a form of way to change an individuals behaviour but less effective. This is because with certain individual whom recceve punishment, they are more likely to build up anger and would most plot to re-offend.This is a good evaluative point, explaining why a punishment-only approach might be counter-productive. The primary goal in source A is to deter potential criminals, giving them long and harsha sentences to send messages that crime will not be tolerated.You fairly present Source A's argument about deterrence. The reason I disagree with Source A is that it places a burden on offenders whom might struggle with mental illnesse and punishment won't solve the problems.This is excellent critical evaluation. You are directly challenging Source A's argument by highlighting what it ignores. Source A says "we have a responsibility to protect the public, and that often means imprisoning dangerous individuals to prevent them from causing further harms".You accurately quote Source A here. I think this is where restorative justice plays a part in helping to not reoffend.This is a good concluding point that shows how elements of Source B's approach (restorative justice) can be seen as a better solution.
"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."
In my oppinion, I agree with Source B the most because I believe that everyone was not born a criminal.You make a clear judgment in favour of Source B and provide a simple reason. For example every crime that is commited I think the criminals mind there is always a root to why they commited the crime in the first place.This is a simple description of the idea of 'root causes' from Source B. However, I do also agree with Source A because the less lenient you are to a criminal the more likely they are not going to want to commit the crime.It is good that you are trying to address both sources, but this point is very simplistic. For example, when some prisioners get relased they usually have time to rethince their actions while they're in there and do things like, getting a job. the criminals occuping their-selves could also decrease crime rates by locking them up.This is a simple description of a point that relates to Source A's argument about deterrence. Overall, I still agree with Source B the most because I believe there is always a root to every problem. This is because most times when criminals have a restorative with the victim, this usually results in the victim seeing the criminals point of veiw and really understanding how their mental state really works and what is the main root of the problem and try to talk to them about it and sort it out.Your conclusion restates your agreement with Source B but the reasoning is limited to a brief mention of restorative justice.
"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 raises ethical and important concerns on why punishment is neccesary in society towards prisoner offenders, I believe and mostly agree with source B because their variety of points establishes a strong argument which takes more into consideration towards offenders.A good opening statement that shows you can weigh both sides but still come to a clear judgment. One reason why I disagree with source A is because they argue that "the primary goal must be to deter potential criminals".You are correctly identifying a key argument from Source A about deterrence. I believe that this point is weak and has many flaws because from my own knowledge I know that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in europe.Excellent evaluation. You label the point as weak and then use your own knowledge (reoffending rates) to explain why. In the proccess of "detering criminals" the imprisonment of offenders simply removes their freedom and also has a negative affect on their mental health.This is a powerful evaluative point, explaining the negative consequences of a punishment-focused system that the source ignores. From my own knowledge, I know that a proportion of prisoners are sometimes led to commuting suicide in order to escape the pressure and mental effects prison has on them.This is a very strong and specific piece of own knowledge that you are using to critique the source's argument. On the other hand I believe that source B presents a stronger argument on the most effective way to sentence offenders. For example, they argue that "a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime".You are now addressing Source B and explaining its arguments clearly. This is an excellent point because source B successfully realises that the majority of criminal crime comes from reoffenders who may not have had opportunities to alter their behaviour and they should in fact be given the chance to change for the better.This is a strong evaluative point that shows you agree with the source and can support it with your own knowledge. Additionally, source B presents the alternative solution to crime when they refer to community sentencing.You correctly identify another of Source B's arguments. From my own knowledge, I know that it costs the government £40-50,000 in expenses to keep each prisoner in prison.Good use of specific own knowledge (prison costs) to develop the source's point. This further makes their point strong because by keeping prisoners in their community under strict rules which I know is monitored through electric tagging which costs only in the range of £100-200, they are not only able to pay back the community through unpaid community service but they are welcomed into society instead of being Ostricised in prison.This is a well-reasoned evaluation, showing how community-based sentences can be more effective. In conclusion, although source A recognises that punishment is essential for deterring future criminals, I believe that Source B presented more well-thought through points and alternatives such as community sentencing. Not only did they recognise the mental effect prison had on offenders, but they also provided and presented a chance for offenders to change. Furthermore allowing me to agree with source B more.A clear and well-supported conclusion that weighs both arguments and 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."
While Soura A is a particularly well thought, containing many good arguments that may prove its point quite well, ultimately the Soura B is what actually improves many flaws that are present within the initial Soura.This is a sophisticated opening, acknowledging the merits of Source A before establishing that Source B is ultimately more convincing. Firstly, Soura A is still a good argument. For instance, it firstly emphasizes how the justia system heups to punish those who break the law, ensuring a sense of justia and fairness for society and victims.You are fairly and accurately explaining the key arguments of Source A. Furthermore, the source als. rightfully points out how the primary goal of punishment and retribution is mainly a defference, and how longer, tougher prison sentences sends a clear message.You continue to explain Source A's reasoning with clarity. At a first glance, this all seems very valid, however, this extract fails to refer to the many problems such punishment may bring. Many prisons are primarily from tax payer money, it costs on average 40-50k in order to maintain a living for one singular person.This is a good critical evaluation. You show you understand the point but immediately identify its weakness using own knowledge about prison costs. This comes into the point about Soura B which I believe is very thought out and almost addresses the flaws in Soura A. Firstly, it talks about how the main focus of effective justice is in fact rehabilitation which is almost not at all mentioned in the first source.Excellent evaluation. You are identifying the flaws and unstated consequences of Source A's position. Its clear that the simple punishment of prison isn't entirely sustainable especially considering how the UK has the highest reoffending rates in europe, around 56-60%.This is a strong, evidence-based critique of the punishment model. Its clear that the core concept of justice has to be extend by addresing the root causes of reoffending.You accurately explain how Source B addresses this issue. Soure A didn't achieve this well, talking primarily about the outcome of punishment rather then the root cause. It doesn't mention how a large portion of up to 77% of prisoners end up in prison begin with as a result of societal issus such as poverty, substune abuse, or childhood abuse and even mentall illness/instability.This is a sophisticated piece of analysis, noting what Source A fails to do and using own knowledge to highlight the importance of tackling root causes. Soura B however, addresses this claim, pointing out a need to invest in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders.You correctly identify Source B's solution to this problem. Another point that Soura A makes is its views on restorative justice. It says that it 'places an unfair burden' on victims to engage with the person who harmed them.You are now addressing another of Source A's arguments regarding restorative justice. It also provides a stence on community sentances describing them as an almost 'light slap on the wrist'. The most effective way at maintaining order, however, is probably the most flawed part of the argument as it fails to realis how restorative justice isn't forced onto the victim and how at time it may even be the opposite of burdening, providing clarity.This is a powerful and well-reasoned critique of Source A's position, explaining why it is a flawed understanding of restorative justice. Through this, I in fact largely agree with this justia system Soura B. as it addresses why crime happery and how to present it rather than what crime happes which Soura A focus on. Some punishments and sentencing should be carried out through a rehabilitatio and reformation where it is what is needed as a society to be far safer and coherent with one another.This is a superb conclusion that weighs the two sources and synthesises your argument to arrive at a powerful and justified 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 source B the most because despite the justice system's somewhat success with punishing breaches of law, I believe that a genuinely effective justice system must focus on rehabilitating and reforming a person.A clear opening that states your judgment and gives a brief reason. One reason why I agree with source B is because it shows how our retribution-based justice system fails to properly sentence offenders to prevent reoffending.You are using Source A's ideas here, but you are framing them as a point of disagreement. This is seen with studies showing that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe.You are using evidence mentioned in Source B and supporting it with your own knowledge. while people may say that this is not true since the significant loss of freedom brought on by a prison scentece means they are less likely to reoffend, they may be true for a minority of criminals but in reality, more often than not criminals reoffend because they lack the skills to act as a functioning member of society e.g. lack of education.This is a sophisticated piece of evaluation. You are critiquing Source A's argument on deterrence by explaining why it might not be true in reality. This shows why I agree with source B because it reveals how our justice system fails to address the core reason why people commit crime; they do not have fundamental skills to function in a society.You are clearly linking your reasoning back to the arguments in Source B. Some people may say that criminals do not commit crime out of desperation brought on by the struggles of not fitting in to society, but out of malice and lawlessness to their own actions. These people are right to some degree but to solve this we have restorative justice schemes which make criminals confront the real world consequences of their actions, thus encouraging them to pursue a different way to produce an income not at the expense of others.This is a good, developed evaluation that explores the 'root causes' of crime. One reason why source B is not entirely wrong however is that it says how when a serious crime is committed, people expect punishment that reflects the severity of the offense.You are now fairly presenting an argument from Source A. Rehabilitative programs often do have the weakness of being seen as a waste of time by the public which is one of its biggest shortcomings even if it truly does help the offender reform themselves.Good evaluation, as you are acknowledging the weakness of a purely rehabilitative approach from the public's perspective. Furthermore we also must consider that it may be impossible to reform some criminals. An example of this may be a criminal with an Antisocial Personality Disorder will not be able to reform themselves because they are biologically oriented towards crime due to their aggression and inability to empathise.This is a sophisticated point, using own knowledge about specific conditions to explore the limits of rehabilitation. such criminals are a very small part of the prison population however and therefore cases like this where reformation is impossible is very rare.This is a strong concluding sentence for the paragraph, putting the counter-argument into perspective.
"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 more with Source B because it focuses on rehabilitation and reform rather than just punishment. I think this is a fairer and more effective way to sentence offender because it helps to prevent future crime instead of just reacting to it.A clear judgment is made and supported by initial reasoning. Source B says that the justice system should "prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root cause of crime", which makes sense because locking people up doesn't always fix their behaviour.You use a quote effectively to support your point. The UK has "one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe" showing that punishment alone isn't working.You are integrating evidence from the source well into your own sentences. If offenders get support through education, mental health treatment or addiction support they are less likely to reoffend. ALSO, community sentences and restorative justice help offenders face the impact of their actions while giving back to society for example through community payback. This protects the public and promotes justice in the long term.This is a good, clear explanation of the arguments presented in Source B. This approach will also save prisons thousands as the average is 40,000-50,000 per person yearly which isn't just pricey but is also unbenificial as the reoffending rates are almose sky rocketing.Excellent use of specific own knowledge (prison costs) to develop the source's argument and show the economic benefits of rehabilitation. Overall, Source B links closely to the idea of PPP prevention and protection because it focuses on stopping crimes before it ever happens again.This is a sophisticated evaluative link to the concept of Prevention, Protection, and Punishment (PPP). However it can also be argued that source A is the most effective way to sentence offenders which I agree with a little bit. Source A argues that the justice system should focus on punishment and retribution which I believe may also be impactful with trying to tackle the reoccurrance of crimes.You are now fairly presenting the arguments from Source A. I think this can be an effective way to sentence offenders because it helps them face the reality of their wrongs instead of just living freely. Source A says "punish those who break the law" which makes sense because sometimes locking people away will show them why they have to change their behaviour instead of just expecting them to change it.This is a good evaluation of Source A's argument, explaining its potential benefit. Source B argues that unlike source A that believes in rehabilitation and reform that those options "undermine public trust and devalue the suffering victims", showing that if there is no punishment in place vicims may live in fear and this would tarnish the publics best intrests.You continue to explain Source A's argument, focusing on the victims' perspective. Overall I agree mostly with source B as the writer has used strong pieces of evidence and even stastics to show the harm punishment and retribution can cause as it is not directly facing the issues. on the other hand I agree with source A that everyone is accountable for their actions and what their actions may be repayed with.A clear and well-balanced conclusion that weighs both sides but reaffirms your initial 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."
Both Source A and B provide viable ways to effectively sentence prisoners and what the justice system should be focused on. However Source A believes the justice system should be focused more on punishment and retribution. Whereas Source B believes the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform.This is a good introduction that accurately summarises the stance of both sources. I agree mostly with Source A as by punishing those who break the law the fundamental purpose of prison is achieved, ensuring a sense of justice and fairness for victims and society alike.You make a clear judgment in favour of Source A. It is true that 75% of victims feel safer once their criminals have been sentenced proportionally to the damage done to the victim.Good use of own knowledge (a statistic) to support the point, although the source of this statistic is not cited. The source goes on to say leniency and 'soft' options' undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims'.You are clearly explaining the argument from Source A here. This is supported by the fact that 83% of victims live a worse life depending on whether or not the sentence is fair in their eyes.Another piece of own knowledge is used here to support Source A. The source goes on to say schemes such as community sentences and restorative justice miss the mark on what the focus of the justice system should be. This is true as the focus should be on punishment and not on forcing uncomfortable meetings.You are correctly explaining Source A's criticism of community-based sentences. If an offender is giving a light sentence then they know the repercussions for their actions is light leading them to reoffend but if they know their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend.You are developing the argument from the source here, which shows good understanding. Although I agree with Source A more, Source B could also be seen as a viable way to operate the justice system as they argue a truly effective justice system must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime.You are now addressing the arguments from Source B. This is an excellent point as its factual that offenders who are offered rehabilitation rarely reoffend compared to offenders who are harshly sentenced.This is a good evaluation, using own knowledge to support Source B's point. The source goes on to say the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe - proving the current harsh, no-tolerance style of justice lacks effectivness and a change should be made.You are effectively using information from the source to develop your point. Source B then goes on to speak about alternatives to punishment and solutions to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens.You clearly explain the alternatives offered in Source B. One such alternative is community sentences - however forcing an individual to do unpaid work is akin to slavery which strips them of their human rights and is therefore not an effective alternative.This is an interesting, though unsupported, piece of evaluation, critiquing the idea of community service.
"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 most with Source B as they contain clear points and evidence which backer it up while Source A fails to give alternative for or examples for their against argument on the justice system focusing on rehabilitation.This is a clear opening statement of judgment, with a reason given. Source A states that the primary goal is to deter potential criminals'.You are correctly identifying Source A's argument about deterrence. But Source A fails to give those preventions which couldve been as source B mentioned investing in education, mental health treatment and addiction support for offenders.This is excellent evaluation. You are directly critiquing Source A by pointing out what it fails to address, and linking this to Source B's strengths. This is because rehabilitation tackles the root of the crime before it digresses. For example investing in education could prevent crimes as it doesn't attract the youth to get involved in criminal activities.This is a very strong and well-reasoned evaluative point. This can be a positive alternative because most crimes committed are done by reoffenders.This is a good point, supported by your own knowledge about the reality of crime. Furthermore in Source A it states that 'schemes like restorative justice place on unfair burden on victims to engage with the person who harmed them'.You are now addressing another of Source A's arguments. which can be true but fails to realise the victims have the right to not interact with the perpetrator.This is good, balanced evaluation. You acknowledge the point might be true but then immediately identify its limitation. As well as they, Restorative justice can be seen as a form of reconciliation. Source A fails to recognise the money needed to uphold a prison as £40,000-£500,000 is needed to maintain living and livelihood for the prisoners. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to just put every person whose committed a crime to prison as it increases the amount of money needed.Another excellent critique of Source A, using your own knowledge of prison costs to highlight a flaw in its argument. As well as that, Source B states how 'simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society'.You are now using Source B to counter the arguments of Source A. They state that 'it fails our society' because once a person has a criminal record they are more likely to have difficulty of reintergrating, for example, they would find getting a job much harder than someone without a criminal record would have because of the potential dangers they could bring upon a workspace.This is a well-developed evaluative point, explaining the long-term consequences that support Source B's argument. Therefore I agree with Source B because they give many other alternatives for rehabilitation and explain why certain forms of reform is positive and prevents crime rates.This is a clear summary of your judgment. But Source B failed to remember that there are other forms of detterrence such as a tag or a curfew which limits criminals rights preventing their likelihood of being able to commit a crime.This final point is a good piece of critical thinking, showing that even the source you agree with isn't perfect.
"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 have a strong argument on the Justice System, I mostly agree more with Source B as it makes stronger arguments.A good start that shows you are weighing both sources before making a clear judgment for Source B. Firstly, Source B argues that 'the core concept of Justice and fairness must extend to creating a safer society' which I know is a strong point as one of the main reasons people are sent to prison is to protect the public however if prisoner are released and reoffend, which is where most crime comes from, it defeats the whole purpose of protecting the public.You are correctly identifying a key argument from Source B and linking it to your own knowledge. This leads to the next reason I mostly agree with Soura B because it mentions method to prevent reoffender as it says support methods such as 'programmes that address their behaviour', 'community sentences' and 'restorative justice'.This is a strong evaluative point that logically follows from your previous sentence. I know these are all great suggestion as for one: many criminals are forced into a life of crime weather due to things like poverty or grooming, and some criminal suffer from issues that if addressed and worked on could lead to them being able to integrate back into society.This is excellent evaluation, using your knowledge of the root causes of crime to explain why Source B's approach is more effective. Furthermore, some tax-payer may be not be happy to pay to house criminals in prisons where they do nothing for society or the economy extept for not being apart of it, however if prisoners engaged in work or lessons like community service and education it would help society and economy as while in prison, prisoner can provide goods or services in community labour service or by manufacturing product.This is a good point that shows you are thinking critically about the wider context of the debate (public opinion and economics). and after their sentence is complete they can use the knowledge and experience they gained in prison to get a job which might stop them from reoffending as they might have been forced into crime by poverty, grooming or addiction which all could be fixed for Source B's solutions.This is a good, developed point that explains the long-term benefits of a rehabilitative approach. On the other hand, Source A says longer prisant sentences will make communities safer which does have some truth as longer sentences would deter criminals.You are now fairly presenting the argument from Source A. however a weekness to this arguement is that same people are forced into crime by things like poverty, grooming and addiction which tough sentences with no reformation wasn't address and will just make it ever harder for these people to integrate back into society as many they might not have the qualification to get a job which is true as many prisoners are illiterate and obtaining a job might be difficult.Excellent evaluation. You acknowledge the point from Source A but immediately identify its significant weakness. Overall I most agree with Source B as it make stronger points that help society in the long term.A clear concluding statement that summarises your overall 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."
Although Source A explains how the Justice System should focus on punishment and Retribution via stating key parts about how it's a crucial exercise of power and authority, I mostly agree with Source B as it says we should focus on Rehabilitation and Reform.This is a slightly confusing opening. You acknowledge Source A's argument but immediately state you agree with Source B. I mainly agree with Soure B because the main goal for people who go to prison should ultimately be to change their ways and start a new life.You are clearly explaining the core arguments of Source B. Souve B tells us, "A key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law-abiding citizens".You are using the source material effectively here to support your point. I certain-ly agree with this as 75% of people who come out of prison try to make amends for their crime they've committed and event-ually make our society safer in long term.Good use of a statistic from your own knowledge to support the argument. What Souve B thinks about is the fact that, "locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society."You are correctly paraphrasing Source B's criticism of the punishment model. Which I heartaully agree with as if we have more people going to jails and putting them into programmes like Restorative Justice we see a much higher chance they will be less likely to reoffend before making our community safer.This is a good, developed evaluation of the point. However, Source A argues that if we lock people up for their crimes and punish them it will be a "crucial excersise of the states power and authority".You are now fairly presenting the counter-argument from Source A. Source A tries to make the argument that those who break the law should see punishment.This is a reasonable evaluative point, but it's not fully developed. What Source A has'nt thought about is the idea that when the offenders come out of prison and they spent all this time not being vented nicely, who's to say they don't commit another crime again?This is a strong evaluative challenge to Source A. You are questioning the logic of a system that does not reform offenders. I agree to disagree as I do belive there should be a sense of justice and fairness however, what's the point of locking them up forever without at least attempting to help change the criminals and making them have a sense of ownnership for what they've done wrong. The UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe; so why steek with something that is not working.This is a good critique, using own knowledge (reoffending rates) to challenge Source A. In conclusion, Source A makes some good points by talking about how the fundemental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law and ensure a sense of justice and fairness. However, Soure B outweighs the points that source A makes as it blatantly tells us that source A is incorrect with their discisons as the UK was one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. It encourages us to think about the criminals and how we could help improve them as individuals. Ultimately I agree with Souve B because a smart justice system doesn't just punish the crime, it addresses the causes and works to prevent future victims by reforming the individual.This is a strong conclusion that weighs both sides and comes to a clear, justified decision.
"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."
Whilst Source A mentions valuable points about victims gaining justice and being at peace, whilst punishing criminals who negativly affect society, I agree more with source B because I believe it addresses the main purpose of the justice system which is to rehabilitate prioners so they don't reoffend in the future.A very clear and well-reasoned opening statement of judgment. Firstly, I agree with source B because it says that, "Simply locking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society".You use a quote from the source effectively to launch your analysis. This is a significantly strong point, as retributive sentences like prison can do the opposite and have negative effects on the prisoners behaviour, making them more resentful and likely to reoffend on release.This is a strong evaluative point that explains the negative psychological impact of prison. Additionally, I know retributive sentences to detere any future offenders and re-offenders is not efficient as prisoner numbers keep increasing, with a huge prisoner population of 80,000 in 2018; this is 146 criminals out of every 100,000 people!Excellent use of specific, detailed own knowledge (prison population statistics) to develop the argument and show the scale of the issue. From source A, we learn that, "leniency and 'soft options'... devalue the suffering of victims".You fairly present the counter-argument from Source A. Whilst this may be true in some cases, it is a weak point as it disregards the safety of society as a whole body, over individuals - by rehabilitating over retribution, resent, hatred and criminal thoughts leave the mind and behaviour of offenders, leading to a safer, lower crime-rated society in the future which benefits EVERYONE.This is a very sophisticated evaluation that critiques the entire premise of Source A's argument. I also agree more with source B because it mentions evidence of rehabilitation of prisoners. For example, it says that, "A community sentence... can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work".You are now analysing another point from Source B. This is an amazing point because it mentions how there are other punishments/sentences than retribution which doesn't result in resentful reoffenders. I also know that community sentences involve around 40-300 hours of unpaid work, e.g painting, litter-picking etc which not only rehabilitates offenders by showing that there are consequences for their actions in a positive way, but also develops skills for the prisoner to when they re-enter society.You use specific own knowledge to explain how this works in practice. However, Source A mentions that, "community sentences often fail to work", and "punishment is the most effective way of maintaining order". This point argues that restorative justice is ineffective, however I believe this is a weak argument because it ignores the idea of preventing future crimes, which retribution actually results in more re-offences.This is another excellent example of weighing the two sources directly against each other. I agree with source B because it addresses the causes and works to prevent future victims by reforming individuals. This is a very strong point because it focuses on the reformation of character for individuals, especially the youth, because I know that there are 3 main youth sentences aimed at reforming individuals: referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders etc. This is very good, but contrasts with source A which says, "long, tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated". This is a weak point because it forgets that it costs approximately £50,000 per prisoner each year to maintain the wellbeing and containment of prizoner. This is very bad for the UK economy as it costs more money to contain criminals, rather than the national-minimum-wage for law abiding citizens.A powerful, evidence-based conclusion that summarises your main arguments and delivers a final, convincing 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."
Although Source A has posed several strong reasons on how the justice system should focus on punishment rather than retribution. I personally agree with writer B. This is due to several reasons.This is a good opening that shows you are considering both sides before making a clear judgment. One reason why I may agree with Source B is because of him pointing out that the UK has "one of the highest reoffending Rattes in europe".You are using evidence from the source effectively to support your point. This point immediately states the weakness of just punishment and on how people that offend and is given punishment does not learn there lesson. This is what makes this point so strong.This is a strong evaluative point that explains the significance of the evidence from the source. however Source A says that justice system should focus on punishment. One of his main reasons on why this should be the case is because long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime is not tolerated.You are now fairly presenting the counter-argument from Source A. This point is strong due to the point highligting that making communities safer. This point correctly highlights the fact that long prison sentences makes communities safer, however what this point has failed to mention is that although you are hiding the offenders, this is perhaps only temporary and when they have finished there sentencing they will roam the streets again meaning a higher chance of communities being in danger.This is a good attempt at evaluation, acknowledging the strength of the point before critiquing it. Source B further develops his argument by stating "this community sentence is a significantly cheaper than a short prison sentence".You clearly explain Source B's argument about the cost-effectiveness of community sentences. this is because prisons cost extreme levels of money to maintain annually. This argument has correctly pointed this out and by him stating this this point is extremely strong.This is a clear evaluation that develops the point from the source. however what he has failed to mention is that community sentencing may not be the reason as to how to stop a person from reoffending this is because doing locals favours may not help them with essential skills which may cause them to reoffend.This is a good piece of critical evaluation, identifying a potential weakness in Source B's argument. Source B has further developed on this idea of rehabilitation stating that less reoffenders means investments in "education, mental health and addiction support".You correctly identify Source B's focus on rehabilitation through investment. this point is strong because this can significantly reduce the amount of people reoffending because of them gaining aid for offenders due to this. Reoffending rates will decrease.This is a good, clear evaluation of the point. due to all of these statements and reasonings I still agree with writer B due to his reasoning and extremely reinforced points.This is a clear conclusion that summarises your judgment.