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 (Punishment).
This highlight shows analysis of View B (Rehabilitation).
This highlight shows your own Evaluation, where you weigh the views or make a 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 disagree with Source A, as punishment induces fear into criminals, decreasing the offence rates significantly as they do not want to lose their freedom. Source A made a strong point about how restorative justice places an an unfair burden on victims who harmed. This is a strong point, as it outlines a key problem with restorative justice. Source B, however, makes a strong point which is the a truly effective justice system should prioritize reform, as it will change criminals, and make them give back to society... helping the UK build a better and stronger nation. Another strong point made by source B, is that punishment does little to benefit our society which is also a strong point, as it costs the nation a lot of money to keep criminals under lock in prisons... This means the punishing the population, which is very temporary, takes away money and people from the population. Overall, Source B has a better and well-rounded arguement for whther we should use punishent or rehabilitation. This means that I agree with Source B more.
"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."
On the one hand Source A claims that punishing 'those who break the law ensure a sense of justice and fairness'. This is credible as by punishing offenders it holds them to account ensuring that society has reciered justice they deserve. Source A also says that, 'imprisoning criminals means 'they are less likely to reofend.' but this isnt credible as the UK has high reoffending rates and 60% of offenders reoffend after being discharged for just one year which suggests that imprisoning people isnt effective. and just a waste of money and time as it costs around £40,000-£50,000 to keep just one offender in prison. Contrastingly Source B believes we shouldn't focus on just punishment but also important factors such as rehabilitation. This is important as if both effendiers and victims have a mutual understanding about the events that have occured and could also possibly stop people from reoffending. Source B says it is 'far more effecture and significantly cheaper,' which is credible as things such as community sentences and fines are cheaper and can be more effective as when prisoners enter prison it croes on their permanent reccord which may make it hard for them to find a job. However Source A says they have a responsibility 'to protect the public'. This is true that laws should protect the publle but they should also be in their interest to prevent crimes and crime rates going up. In conclusion of both sides offer good points about how the main priorety is to keep the public safe and there are various ways to do this. However I agree more with Source B as it clearly shows that putting people in prison isnt the only way to decrease reoffending but the key to it is rehabilitation and factors such as community sentaces which give a chance to turn life around.
"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 somewhat agree with Source A. This is because putting offenders in prison reduces crime and keeps the public safe. Also, victims of a crime will have more relief knowing that the person is getting punished and they are getting justice. Source A also has a good point where it says 'devalue the suffering of victims' as if an offender was to have community sentences it could really bother the victim. On the other hand, some may agree with Source B. I somewhat agree with Source B as Source A only talks about punishment while Source B also talks about tackling the root causes of crime. Where it says 'significantly cheaper' as putting people into prisions costs from £20,000 to £40,000, so what is the point of spending that money if changes aren't being made to the offenders? Overall, both sides have good points, but I agree with Source A more. This is because I believe putting people into prison for a certain amont of time could help them understand what they have done is wrong, and before offenders commit those crimes they will have the thought of them getting into trouble which could potentially stop them from committing that crime.
"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."
The two sources talk about the justice system. Source A talks about punishing and retribution. While Source B talks about rehabilitation and reform. Both sources came up with good strong points but I agree with source B. Firstly most people who commit crime have a reason wherever it's not having the right mental state or mental health or not being finnancially stable. Another point to mention is I know to look after prisoners it costs 40,000 to 50,000 pounds, which isn't good for the long run. That money can do a lot and it's just not worth it to take care of people who are a "threat" to society. Kids have youth clubs to support with mental health and bad behavior perhaps that money could be invested in more adult version youth clubs or just clubs. The next source, source A talks about punishment and retribution. First of all yes many criminals are a threat to society which is why I dont disagree with punishing reoffenders or having things like an ankle moniter. I also agree with justice and fairnes, without it the country could be very chaotic. To my conclusion both sources provide strong points but source B is more agreeable.
"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, Source A and Source B are both good and effectives ways to sentence offenders. They both have an effect on how the offender would live their life in the future. Firstly Source A promotes the fact that the fundamental pupose of the justice system is to punish those who wrongfully break the law, how the public expects the sentence to reflect on how severe the crime was which is called retribution. A retribution is a sentence that sends a clear message that crime would not be tolerated which makes our communities safer. However Source B states how the real sentence should be rehabilation (a way to avoid locking them up and isolating them). Simply just working on their mental health and the concept of just becoming better and avoid reoffending. Additionally, I agree with Source A however B aswell. So because locking them could create a safer enviroment for the citizens. Imprisoning offenders could mean less crimes being done, which does good on the public. In contrast I thoroughly believe with Source B because however imprisonment is fairly an effective way to punish sentence. Rehabilitation is also an effective way where offenders could address their behaviour and what caused them to act the way they did.
"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."
Firstly, Source A has a strong point in saying that punishment should focus on ensuring justice and fairness, and backs it up by explaining how punishment serves retribution for offenders, as well as excersising the state's power and authority. However, what this argument fails to notice is the fact that many people are wrongly convicted of a crime, so increasing punishment and retribution on innocent people would give society a negative view of the justice system. Furthermore, Source A has a weak point in saying that restorative justie is negative as it places an unfair burden on victims. This is untrue because in many cases restorative justice gives the victim the chance to see the situation in a different light and feel more at ease. Secondly, Source B has a strong point in saying that the justice system should prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime... punishment and retribution does nothing to belf help reform criminals. This is a strong point as bringing rehabilitation into the justice system will bring down the rates of re-offending as it transforms criminals into law abiding citizens as well as benefitting society as there will be less people reoffending. Source B also says that the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. This proves that the UK's current approach is wrong. Meanwhile, countries like Norway have low re-offending rates because of their restorative justice approach. Overall, I agree more with Source B as it proves the benefits of rehabilitation.
"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 personal opinion I mainly agree with Source b stating that the justice system should pocus in rehabilitation and reform. It makes it so people come to see the real world consequences of their actions and helps regem them into functioning members of society. A type of justice I think should be enforced is restorative justice. This is because criminals and victing get to talk out there problems... providing them with a sense of gwilt which is much more beneficial for rebuilting them as a person than having them remain in sulitvice in a jail cell. On the other hand I also understand and acknoledge Source A's point about how the justice system should focus on punishment and retribution. This is because it lets criminals serene the full force of their sentence and deter them from commiting the same crime... For example somebody who commited a count of murder doesn't deserve to feel any form of resolve for there actions. Long hard sentences make it so people suffer for the actions they commited. This is a good punt however a lot of shorter lighter crimes made it so people commit the crime more often which is why the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates. Finally I agree with source B as rehabilitation and reform leads to preventing in crimes. For example investing in education programs, youth centres or Addicts Anonymous programs stop people not only from reoffending but also from commiting crime in the first place.
"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 having really strong arguments about how imprisonment helps society and the victim feel more safe if the criminal is in prison, I still agree with Source B more. This is due to Source B explaining how community sentences can force the individual that did the crime to pay back to society through unpaid work while also making them attend programmes... Furthermore rehabilitation and reformation is way cheaper than imprisonment. This is because the government spends £40,000-£50,000 on prisons and this doesnt really help since its basically wasting money. In addition Source B also explains the core concept of justice and fairness which is to create a safer society by reducing number of reoffenders. I further agree with Source B because things like restorative justice can be powerfull when wanting to change an offender since it gives a chance to a victim to voice out their feelings. However on the other hand I also agree with source A this is because it is clear that rehabilitation and retribution can be seen as a leniency and a so called 'soft option'. In conclusion both arguments have strong points and are clear, however I agree with Source B more because it takes into consideration the offenders upbrining and mitigating factors. Source B isn't just good for the society but it also helps the government since they would spend less money on prisons and put it towards something like education, mental health treatment or addiction support to offenders.
"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 both sources make valid points, I mainly agree with source B as it outlines both the aspects of how understanding is the basic of a conerent society. Source A says "Long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime won't will not be tolerated" & although this is true, it is not a very good point as it fails to mention that people still reoffend despite knowing the awaiting punishment. Source B however, talks about how a "community senrence can force an individual to pay back to their society through unpaid work... this is a strong point as criminals can improve themselves... and it is also a lot cheaper. However, source B says "creating a safer society... can only be achieved by reducing the number of people who reoffend" this is a poor point as although reducing the number of people who reoffend would benefit society, we must also reduce the number of people who commit crime in the first place. In fact, source A states that "if an offender knows that their actions will lead to a significant loss of freedom, they are less likely to reoffend". This is a good point because not only are criminals less likely to reoffend, but people are less likely to commit crime in the first place. Source B makes a better point in saying it "gives victims a voice and forces offenders to confront the real world impact of their actions." In fact, countries that rely more on leniency in justice, such as Norway tend to have lower reoffending rates. All that being said, I agree mostly with source B... because it aligns more with understanding and moral expectations... there are also examples in action where source B's system works well such as Norway, as mentioned.
"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 having good points I agree with Source B the most as it tries to break the help sight the core problem instead of the punishing a victim of the problem. One reason why I agree with B is because it's trying to protect... the root cause instead of just punishing... For example it's trying to get the government to invest in education, rental health treatments and addiction support. By doing this it means that instead of being in a situation where people have an inability to go into the real world and then reoffend... they will get supported and feel like they have the help to go into the world. One reason why I agree with A is why I partly agree with A is because it's only gair if a victim see's them punished or imprisondd. However putting someone in prison costs around 40,000 - 5,0000 of the tax peeyes money. This isn't fair that the public almost has to pay for their crimes.
"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(B). This is because B adresses more permeanant solutions to tackle the root cause of crime. For example B states that a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and will gail our society in the long run. This means that offenders will gail to change and will continue to keep reoffending. This would lead to significantly increased crime rates. In addition B states that methods such as restorative justice and community sentences can help to reduce crime rates and reform reoffenders... This would decrease the chances of offenders reoffending. A weakness of this arguement is that offenders may not truly see the impact of their actions due to lenient punishments and may continue to reoffend. On the other hand, one might agree more with Source A(A). This is because A explores the importance of sentences that are equivalent to the severity of the crime. For example, A states that the primary goal must be to deter potential criminals and that long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. This is a strong point because is potential criminals are deterred from committing crimes, there will be a significant decrease in crime rokes. A strength of this arguement is that it includes the significance in public opinion in the prevention of crime. A weakness is that public opinion doesn't prevent the always prevent crime from taking place.
"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 providing a strong and sustained argument, I personally agree with Source B, due to the reason being, the justice system shouldn't be about punishments and retribution; it should promote rehabilitation and reformation. I think this because statistics show people who are sentenced to community service are less likely to reoffend as opposed to someone who has experienced incarceration. In addition to this, maintaining an imprisoned body costs roughly £40,000-£50,000 which just is not cost effective, nor is it justifiable to our tax payers. We not only do not benefit from their imprisonment, but also have their budget cut by £50,000 which could be spent to benefit them. Lastly, imprisonment can unsuprisingly affect employment, as criminal records are not what an employer wants to see when looking to hire. As a result the person is entitled to unemployment benefit until he is in occupation. Yet again this is in no way, shape or form, beneficial towards the budget made by tax payers. In conclusion, both sides present a well structured argument, but ultimately I side with Source B.
"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, Because when they said while punishement has a role, a truly effective justic system must priortise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of Crime. The core concept of justic and Fairness munt extend to creating a safer society in the long term, which can only be achieved by reducing the number of people who reoffend. This means investing in education, mental health treatment, and addiction support for offenders. Secondly, A key responsibility of the justice system is to turn offenders into law abiding citizens. A community sentence for example, can force an individual to pay back to society through unpaid work while also making them attend programmes that address their behaviour. This is often far more effective and significantly cheaper than a short prison sentence. Similarly, restorative justice can be a powerful tool giving victims a voice and forcing offenders to confront the real world impact of their actions. I disagree with source A Because when they said the fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law. This ensures a semes of justice and Fairness for victims and society as a whole. Leniency and so-called 'soft options' undermine public trust and devalue the suffering of victims.
"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 writer A making some good points I'm compelled to agree with writer B who makes points that would suggest their arguement stronger. as they attempt to keep prisoners out of jail by doing things like giving community sentences which appeal to the persons human rights as they no longer have a 'lack of freedom'. This method of punishment is also far more cost efficient because I know that keeping prisoners in jail would cost around 40-50 thousand pounds per year meaning that the more people in jail the more money wasted. Writer A also makes some amzing points as they argue that tools like restorative justice, which writer B suggests, places an unfair burden on the victim which could lead to the victim having to potentially relive the event whilst the criminal is present. Soos Writer B also makes the point that the UK has some of the highest reoffending rates in Europe which suggests that the justice system in place is flawed. And I know that when something is ineffective or cannot complete its job it should be changed. Overall although writer A makes some compelling points I have to mainly agree with writer B as they think about persons human rights as well as taking into consideration the cost of their sentences to the government and how their way of thinking would affect the prisoner positively.
"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 being explaining lots of strong points, I mostly agree with source B. This is due to the fact that source A focuses on how how criminals should be punisht and taken to prison. One reason why I agree with Source B is because it states that Rehabilitation and reform can be significantly cheaper. However prisons have to pay £40,000-50,000 to maintain the living of a prisoner. We also know that leaving someone in prison won't be as effective as people will reofend and won't change their behaviour. Secondly, we know that the uk has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe, meaning that prisons aren't doing any change on some criminals. Although, it could be argued that prisons are much more effective because victims won't be exposed to seeing criminals. People might also say that taking criminals to prison can be much more effective as it releases a sense of Justice and Fairness for the victims.
"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 Source A states valid points about why the justice system focuses on punishment and retribution... Source B clearly states how specific objectives can work better in the future. Source A states that long, tough prison sentence send clear messages that crime won't be tolerated which seems to make our community safer. I disagree that community sentences often fail to work and that they let offenders off lightly. Whereas I do agree with Source A that we have a responsibility to protect the public. I believe that there are many other possible ways of doing so, a offender knowing that their actions will lead to loss of freedom does not exactly make them less likely to reoffend as there has been many cases that offenders know what and how significant their crime is, yet they still reoffend. While I lean more to Source B focusing on more on rehabilitation and reformation is because keeping offenders in jail costs a lot meaning the more offenders being put in jail the more money the government will have to spend on the prisons. Source B clearly states that a community sentence... is more effective and cheaper as keeping and putting offenders in jail cost up to roughly about 40-50,000 pounds. Overall I agree more with Source B as the methods seems to be better for the long term.
"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."
With Source A saying that the justice system is to punish who break the law and that and to protect from the public from further harm, I agree more with Source B because it makes great points saying that justice and fairness can lead to a better health treatment. Another reason why i agree is because things like the rehabilitaton programme helps prevent the prisoner to not reoffend again, this herps because it's way too expensive to have prisoners in prisons as it costs around £40,000-£50,000. With Source A they fail to realise that the restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims where as Source B mainly focuses on fairness, It's also points that punishment does little change to their behaviour. Whereas, Source A points out that punishment ensures a sense of justice and fairness. They fail to point out that this brings unfairness to the prisoners which makes it, a less effective way to beiny punishing sentencing offenders. This can lead to prisoners reoffending again. Another reason why I mostly agree with source B is that rehabiltin prayamnes stops the offender to then commit a crime again which would lead to a drop in the reoffending rates in the UK... Another clour point is responsibility helps offenders become law-abiding which means they obey the law and they go by it.
"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 think Source B has a better arghement because when focusing on improving someone's sense of threat it comes with many things. Hancever reoffenders could take advantage of this. B's point is stronger because reoffenders could deter from committing continuous crimes.
"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 both arguement are strong I mainly agree with Source B with rehabilitation and reform. This is for various of reasons for example around 60% of people who get arrested reoffend due to their mindset being neyanive or beeiving they can never get a normal job. Therefore the idea of prison reforming can change the mindset of these convicts giving them hope. To add on Source A mentions that the justice system should focus on punishment due to it ensuring "justice and fairness" to the victims afected by criminals. However, many victims believe how they was affected the prisoner should be but that would most likely to likely challenge the human rights act. Therefore, the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform to instead change and prevent these criminals from reoffending. On the other hand, I partially agree with Source A due to its point about how long prison sentences show that crime will not be tolerated. This is a strong point as it can prevent reoffenders as they would think twice before commiting crime due to the tough treatment in these UK prisons. Although, Source A's point was strong, Source B's counter arguement has more evidence.
"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 writhers well address their points on the advantages of these seperate justhacosystems however I agree more with Source B as it well backs up its points with evidence and shatushears that prove rehabiltation and reform to be the better approach. Source A falls on the side of funshment and retribution as the fundamental purpose of the justice system. It is stated that the public deserves a sentence for the criminal that reflects the severity of the crime. however this point galls to realise the fact that even if the criminal is punished, the damage des not desapear and still has a significant impact on the vichen. However, schemes like restorative justice can actually ease or reduce the damage as it gives the victim and the criminal a chance to sympathise and identify the context behind their achions. Source A describes these rehabilitation methods as "soft-options". but galls to recognise the fact that these methods help to tackle the root causes of crime. The UK is said to have one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe meaning that if we focus more on rehabilitation and tackling root causes, we can prevent criminals from reoffending. The country spends around over £40,000 pounds to put each individual criminal in prison so why spend so much money on punishment methods when rehabilitation is shown statistically to be the better approach. Overall, I believe Source B gives the better point as the methods are backed with statistics and evidence. Why should the government waste money that can be put to better things on criminals instead of using rehabilitative methods that are cheaper, attack root causes, and drive for real change on criminal outlook.
"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 says some good points... I believe that Source B is a much better option as it talks about how it builds criminals to be better law abiding citizens. One reason is how rehabilitation and refamentation is a more effective way than punishment. This is because putting criminals through rehabilitation lowers the risks of crime. This means that it would overall lower the risks of crime that may of taken place. Someone else might disagree with my point and say that its better because it lets victims of crime feel justice is served. Although this is a good point, a reason why rehabilitation is better is because it could help build them into a better person to benefit society. Another reason as to why I agree with Soube B rather than A is because it could help the cause of crime instead of just punishing. This means that they try to adress the reasons for crime to prevent it in the future. For example, helping their motives could be to get food and steal, they might feel wheat they need so they could use food cheaper or food banks.
"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 has explend that it will be more safer for the crinimals to be locked up pource B has good points like one reason that becuse it says- a truly effective justice system must priortise rehabiliation which is better more effective the punishment. As I knew is cost 40,000 to 50,000 pends to help to keep prisoners locked up... also one of main concept of justice and fairness must exend to create a safer society in the long term. As harsh punishments will only help in a short term and it is also known as there is a high reoffending rate which means that criminals would be commit a crime again after being related. but if the focus is on rehabiliation it can stop the criminals of every brey to reoffend. However Source A still has good points as what I know is that when there will be a consequence to there actions it will be less likely for them to reoffend and it also says the fundamental purple of the justice system is to punish. it is known that 42% of people who has the chance of people who will be aquivlent from the crime.
"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."
The writer I agree with the most is Source A. This is because I think they are more effective than Source B. I agree more with A because I think people that break the law need to be punished or with out punishment they will continue to do it again and will not learn their Pesson. A quote that I think an effective point from Source A is: "Long tough prison sentences send a clear message that crime will not be tolerated". The reason as to why I agree with that point is because the only way to teach someone a lesson is to make it harsh and a memorable one. On the other hand, I agree to an extent with Source B. This is because you never know what someone is going through maybe they needed a push and a last chance to prove that they can be responsible. They could also have mental health issues which causes them to commit whatever crime they did. Lastly, back to Source A, although people may have some mental issues and a reason why they commited the crime, they should have already been taken care of by a mental care home ect. Another reason why I agree more with Source A is because if someone was murdered you can't give the person another chance as they knew what the consequence would be for their actions.
"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 they made more compelling points than Source A, however Source A also presented a strong case for retribution. Firstly, Soura B says that "simply looking people up in a cycle of punishment does little to change their behaviour and fails our society." This is an excellent point as Source B explains that lacking up prisoners does nothing for them as they dont-generally, at least- go to in-prison workshops, do not develop crucial skills and do not address why they did the crime or reflect on it. This leaves them unchanged mentally leaving a high risk of them reoffending once they walk out. However, Source B has not considered that prisons physically ensure that criminals cannot escape back into society to harm the people, which may happen if criminals are sentenced to an alternative punishment. However Source A also makes a great point when they say that "community sentences often fail to work, and many see them as a way of letting off offenders lightly". Source A has a good point here as they say that the general public see community sentences as too light of a punishment. Additionally, Source A says that restorative justice places an unfair burden on victims... While this is true, Source A does not mention that restorative justice is a two-party consent scheme - both the offender and the victim - to each take place. Overall, I agree more with Source B as they make compelling points on the endless prison cycle and restorative justice, but Source A also makes strong points on but does not consider key ideas.
"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 as in approaches the root cause of crime and aims to create a safer society long term. As of how the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe. This suggests the current system is not effective and doesnt work. Rehabilitation aims to making reflecting by addressing criminal behaviour, education, mental health problems and addiction. Doing this can create criminals that are then law abiding. Also Source B points out their benefits... because it is cheaper and shorter. It is currently £40,000 to £50,000 pounds to take care of a prisoner. This makes Source B an excellent point as in mentally and physically reforms offenders. Although Source A is a weaker point I still slightly agree with them however it focuses on punishment and retribution. In source A it tells about justice and fairness towards victims by punishing offenders. They do this by long and tough sentences which I disagree with as they often break human rights. Community sentences often dont work however I mights make a weak point because it teaches offenders real skill and gives them an income. In conclusin although source A has some strong arguements, Source B has more valid and determining points through reformation and rehabilitation.
"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."
Source A and Source B both have good arguments. Source A states those who break the law should be punished, to ensure a sense of justice and fairness. I agree with this point because no one is above the law. However, the source goes on to mention that the sentence should reflect the severity of the offerce (retribution). I disagree with this statement, because it can bring back past tramaus, etc. Sovice B says punishment has a role, although, the justice system should prioritise rehabilitation, to get rid of the root problem. I agree with this because after serving their punishment, we can't guarantee they won't commit again. Rehabilitation helps the offender change their ways and become a better person.
"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 Source A, it shows US how the justice system is there to punish those who break the law. Which supposedly ensures a sense of justice and fairness for victims and society as a whole. The writer of the source believes that if a serious crime has been committed then the public has a right to expect a sentence that reflects on what and how severe the offence was. which in my opinion is quite fair and reasonable but it won't fully allow the criminal to change their ways. It also states that a system based on punishment is not only fair, but is an effective way of maintaining order, which makes quite alot of sense. However, in Source B, it states that the justice system should focus on rehabilitation and reform, which means to tackle the roots of the issue before senctencing the offenders... As the UK has one of the highest reoffending rates in Europe, the current approach of making people work and being prosecuted with ultimately harsh punishments isn't working as well as they wished it to be. But if they change how they focus from punishment to rehabilitation many things could change... This is also use ful as maintaining a prison sentence for each individual costs up to £40,000 - £50,000 so giving the offenders rehab would be more useful for the people and the government as they wouldn't have to spend as much. In conclusion, I mainly agree with source B, as it has key ways that would help change people without turning prisoners into slaves and both sources have very strong points towards the justice system.
"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 having some strong points, I mostly agree with Source B. This is because it talks about 'justice and fairness' wheras in source A its just talking about power authority. One reason why I agree with Source B is because it talks about the different ways we need to turn these people into law abiding citizens. From my knowlege I know that it costs atleast 210,000 pounds to be able to maintain a prisonen. One reason I disagree with Source A is because it talks about restorative justice not being helpful for society and longer punishments prove crime is not tolerated. This is wrong because they can still reoffend in prison. Addinoaly it also states that community sentences often fail to work wheras in Source B it states that restorative community sentences help people stop reoffending and believe locking people up simply wont change their actions.
"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 A because it gives us a key understanding on how the prisoner should be treated in doing wrong. This is shown when it explains how people are on the same level and no one is above the law: 'Justice and Fairness'.
A person that has been prosecuted in a bad way may argue that Source B is unfair as they focus on "mental health, addiction".
Whereas people may argue that source A is more logical for the authority as majority of the time, when people come out they reoffend because they can easily fall in a bad issue with them. Also the Source A does listen to the causion it only looks in hard and one way.
But on the other hand I also agree with source B as its main objective is to focus on rehabilitation and reform". It makes us understand that not everyone does a thing bad because they want to but they may have a hidden reason.
"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 explained their points thoroughly, I agree more with source B as it says that the justice System should focus on rehabilitation and reform. One reason why I agree more with source B is because it states "a truly effective justice System must prioritise rehabilitation to tackle the root causes of crime." This is an amazing point because we know that locking people up in a Prison cell does little to change their behaviour and fails our Society because the prisoners do not really get an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and change positively. However, one strong point from source A is that is states that we have a responsibility to protect the public and prevent them from harm. I think this is a good point because it acknowledges the fact that the public needs to be considered and cared for to make a safer society. One weak point of Source A is that it states "the fundamental purpose of the justice system is to punish those who break the law." The reason why this is a weak point is because I know that the justice system has more responsibilities to care for rather than constantly punishing people. Another great point that source B states is that "a smart justice system doesn't just prevent crime, it addresses the causes and works to prevent futre crimes."
"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."
Source A believes that the justice system should focus on the philosophy of retribution & handing out a punishment equal to the crime. Whereas source B believes in the philosophy of rehabilitation & forcing prisoners to repay their community. Source A makes a strong point in saying that the justice system should instill a sense of fairness in people victims & in society as a whole. A prison sentence is an effective way to do so as if the punishment fits the crime then criminals will be less likley to commit severe crimes out of fear of a long sentence, therefore it acts as a deferance. However what the source doesn't consider is that not all people will be detered by said sentences, and sending prisoners to jail can cost upwards of $40,000 to $50,000. Meaning that a large amount of taxpayer money will be going towards feeding & looking after these prisoners. Source B also makes a very strong point in mentioning how by prioritising the rehabilitation of offenders we can tackle the roots of crime, therefore lowering the crime rate perhaps even more than detterance would. The source supports this by showing how under the current system of retribution, the UK has one of the highest crime rates in Europe. However what source B doesn't consider is that this method of rehabilitation may not be effective against every criminal. There is a phrase "murder becomes a habit". Source A highlights this issue... However what Source A fails to realise is that restorative justice can only take place if both the victim & aggressor agree to it. Overall, I am more inclined to agree with source B as it makes several strong points around tackling the root causes of crime in order to create a safer future. Source A also makes strong points around using prison sentences as a detterant for criminds, however it the source's lack of insight into the rules around restoratative justice hold it back.