Some people believe that there should be a fixed punishment for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
Some people believe that there should be a fixed punishment for each type of crime. Others, however, argue that the circumstances of an individual crime, and the motivation for committing it, should always be taken into account when deciding on the punishment.
Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
People hold conflicting views about imposing appropriate punishments for criminals. Some argue that each kind of crime should receive fixed penalties while others believe specific circumstances and motives should be taken into consideration. This essay will first closely justify both views before showing my final thoughts for a mix of these two.
On the one hand, there are good grounds for a fixed punishment to be adopted. This contributes to a fair justice system as all individuals are aware of the consequences for offenders depending on their unlawful acts. This system will minimize the risk of discrimination and consequently have a deterrent effect on society. By contrast, if people knew they would convince the jury of a reason for their crime or tell a sob story about offending situations, final judgment would be arbitrary. This means some offenders would get away with their offense, resulting in unintended injustice.
On the other hand, those who propose the circumstances surrounding a crime and the motivation behind it should be considered when determining the sentences have some points. They believe that each case is unique, and just a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient to achieve fairness. Offenders’ background, mental state and intention should be taken into account so that the judge can provide the best response, forming a more humane system. A person killing in self-defense cannot be equated with a serial killer, or a first-time thief who strives to feed their family should receive more tolerance than those repeatedly stealing for personal gain.
Upon weighing both views, I believe that the combination between these two proposals is essential. Fixed sentences should be adopted to minor crimes such as shoplifting or speeding, which hardly require much time for justice procedure and often cause unserious consequences. Serious crimes such as embezzlement and murder, which involve severe implications and many people in complex scenarios, should be solved with customized punishments to guarantee equity.
Gợi ý nâng cấp từ vựng
-
"People hold conflicting views" -> "Opinions are divided"
Explanation: "Opinions are divided" is a more formal and concise way to express the idea of differing viewpoints, which is more suitable for academic writing. -
"imposing appropriate punishments" -> "imposing suitable penalties"
Explanation: "Penalties" is a more precise term in the context of legal and criminal justice, aligning better with formal academic language. -
"each kind of crime" -> "each type of offense"
Explanation: "Type of offense" is a more specific and formal term than "kind of crime," which is somewhat vague and less commonly used in legal contexts. -
"should receive fixed penalties" -> "should incur fixed penalties"
Explanation: "Incur" is a more precise verb in this context, indicating the imposition of penalties as a direct result of the offense. -
"closely justify" -> "thoroughly justify"
Explanation: "Thoroughly" is a more academically appropriate adverb than "closely," which is less formal and can imply a superficial analysis. -
"good grounds" -> "strong arguments"
Explanation: "Strong arguments" is a more precise and formal way to describe the basis for a viewpoint in academic writing. -
"all individuals are aware" -> "all parties are aware"
Explanation: "Parties" is a more formal term than "individuals" in this context, referring to the collective understanding of the legal system. -
"depending on their unlawful acts" -> "based on their illegal actions"
Explanation: "Illegal actions" is a more precise term than "unlawful acts," which is less commonly used in formal legal discourse. -
"minimize the risk of discrimination" -> "reduce the likelihood of discrimination"
Explanation: "Reduce the likelihood of" is a more formal and precise phrase than "minimize the risk of," which is slightly informal and less specific. -
"have a deterrent effect on society" -> "deter society"
Explanation: "Deter" is a more direct and formal verb than "have a deterrent effect," which is somewhat redundant and less concise. -
"if people knew they would convince the jury" -> "if individuals were able to convince the jury"
Explanation: "Were able to convince" is more formal and precise than "knew they would convince," which is less formal and less clear. -
"tell a sob story" -> "present a mitigating narrative"
Explanation: "Present a mitigating narrative" is a more formal and academically appropriate phrase than "tell a sob story," which is colloquial and informal. -
"final judgment would be arbitrary" -> "the final judgment would be arbitrary"
Explanation: Adding "the" before "final judgment" clarifies the reference and enhances the formality of the sentence. -
"unintended injustice" -> "unintended injustices"
Explanation: "Injustices" is the plural form necessary to match the plural context of "some offenders." -
"those who propose" -> "those advocating"
Explanation: "Advocating" is a more precise and formal term than "proposing," which is somewhat vague in this context. -
"should be taken into account" -> "should be considered"
Explanation: "Should be considered" is a more formal and direct way to express the idea of giving thought to certain factors. -
"the best response" -> "the most appropriate response"
Explanation: "The most appropriate response" is a more formal and precise term than "the best response," which is somewhat vague and informal. -
"unserious consequences" -> "minor consequences"
Explanation: "Minor" is a more precise and formal term than "unserious," which is not commonly used in formal writing. -
"justice procedure" -> "judicial process"
Explanation: "Judicial process" is a more formal and specific term than "justice procedure," which is less commonly used and less precise. -
"unserious" -> "minor"
Explanation: "Minor" is a more formal and commonly used term in legal and academic contexts than "unserious," which is less standard.
These changes enhance the formality, precision, and clarity of the essay, aligning it more closely with academic writing standards.
Band điểm Task Response ước lượng: 8
Band Score for Task Response: 8
-
Answer All Parts of the Question:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively addresses both sides of the argument regarding fixed punishments versus considering individual circumstances. The author presents a balanced view, outlining the merits of fixed penalties in terms of fairness and deterrence, while also acknowledging the importance of context in certain cases. The discussion of both perspectives is well-articulated, with relevant examples such as self-defense and the motivations behind theft.
- How to improve: To enhance the response, the essay could benefit from a more explicit mention of the implications of each viewpoint on the justice system. Adding a brief summary of the potential consequences of adopting either approach could provide a deeper analysis and strengthen the argument.
-
Present a Clear Position Throughout:
- Detailed explanation: The author maintains a clear position that a combination of both approaches is necessary. This stance is consistently communicated throughout the essay, particularly in the concluding paragraph where the author reiterates the need for a mixed system of fixed and flexible punishments. The transition from discussing both views to presenting a personal opinion is smooth and logical.
- How to improve: While the position is clear, the essay could improve by explicitly stating the author’s opinion earlier in the introduction. A more definitive thesis statement could guide the reader more effectively and reinforce the author’s stance throughout the essay.
-
Present, Extend, and Support Ideas:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents and supports ideas well, particularly in the discussion of fixed punishments and the need for context. The use of examples, such as comparing self-defense to serial killing, effectively illustrates the author’s points. However, some ideas could be further developed; for instance, the discussion on the deterrent effect of fixed punishments could include statistics or studies to bolster the argument.
- How to improve: To enhance the depth of analysis, the author should aim to provide more specific examples or data to support claims. Additionally, expanding on the implications of a mixed system could provide a more comprehensive view of the author’s perspective.
-
Stay on Topic:
- Detailed explanation: The essay remains focused on the topic throughout, addressing the prompt directly and maintaining relevance to the discussion of punishment. The author does not deviate from the central theme, ensuring that all points made are pertinent to the question posed.
- How to improve: While the essay is largely on topic, the author could further ensure that each paragraph explicitly ties back to the central question. Adding a sentence at the end of each paragraph that connects the discussion back to the prompt could reinforce the focus and clarity of the argument.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the task and effectively communicates the author’s views. With minor adjustments in clarity and depth, it could achieve an even higher score.
Band điểm Coherence & Cohesion ước lượng: 8
Band Score for Coherence and Cohesion: 8
-
Organize Information Logically:
- Detailed explanation: The essay presents a clear structure, beginning with an introduction that outlines the conflicting views on punishment. Each viewpoint is discussed in separate paragraphs, allowing for a logical progression of ideas. For instance, the first body paragraph effectively argues for fixed punishments, while the second addresses the need for considering individual circumstances. The conclusion synthesizes these perspectives, reinforcing the writer’s stance on a balanced approach. However, there are moments where the transition between ideas could be smoother, particularly when shifting from the discussion of fixed punishments to the consideration of circumstances.
- How to improve: To enhance logical flow, consider using transitional phrases that explicitly connect the ideas between paragraphs. For example, after discussing fixed punishments, a phrase like "Conversely, it is also important to consider…" could help guide the reader more clearly into the next argument.
-
Use Paragraphs:
- Detailed explanation: The essay effectively uses paragraphs to separate different viewpoints, which aids in clarity and organization. Each paragraph has a clear focus: the first on fixed punishments, the second on the need for consideration of circumstances, and the final one on the writer’s opinion. However, the introduction could be more explicitly divided into two parts: presenting the conflicting views and stating the essay’s purpose.
- How to improve: To improve paragraphing, ensure that each paragraph begins with a clear topic sentence that outlines its main idea. Additionally, consider breaking the introduction into two sentences: one for presenting the views and another for stating the essay’s intent. This will provide a clearer roadmap for the reader.
-
Use a Range of Cohesive Devices:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good use of cohesive devices, such as "On the one hand" and "On the other hand," which effectively signal the contrasting views. Additionally, phrases like "By contrast" and "Upon weighing both views" help to clarify the writer’s reasoning. However, the essay could benefit from a wider variety of cohesive devices, particularly in the conclusion, where the transition to the writer’s opinion feels somewhat abrupt.
- How to improve: To diversify cohesive devices, incorporate more synonyms and alternative phrases. For instance, instead of repeating "On the one hand" and "On the other hand," consider using "In support of fixed punishments" and "Conversely, those who advocate for flexibility argue that…" Furthermore, in the conclusion, a phrase like "In summary" or "Ultimately" could create a smoother transition into the writer’s final thoughts.
Overall, the essay demonstrates strong coherence and cohesion, effectively organizing and connecting ideas. By refining transitions and enhancing the variety of cohesive devices, the writer can further elevate the clarity and fluidity of their argument.
Band điểm Lexical Resource ước lượng: 7
Band Score for Lexical Resource: 7
-
Use a Wide Range of Vocabulary:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary relevant to the topic of crime and punishment. Terms such as "fixed penalties," "deterrenteffect," "arbitrary," and "humane system" are effectively employed. However, there are instances where the vocabulary could be more varied. For example, the phrase "good grounds for a fixed punishment" could be enhanced by using synonyms or related terms to avoid repetition and enrich the text.
- How to improve: To enhance vocabulary range, consider incorporating synonyms or related phrases. For instance, instead of repeating "fixed punishment," you might use "standardized penalties" or "set sentences." Additionally, exploring more advanced vocabulary related to justice and ethics could elevate the essay further.
-
Use Vocabulary Precisely:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally uses vocabulary accurately, but there are moments where word choice could lead to confusion. For example, the phrase "convince the jury of a reason for their crime" could be misinterpreted. It might suggest that offenders can justify their actions rather than simply presenting their circumstances. Furthermore, the term "unserious consequences" is somewhat awkward and could be clearer.
- How to improve: Aim for more precise vocabulary by choosing words that convey your intended meaning more clearly. Instead of "unserious consequences," consider "minor repercussions" or "less severe outcomes." Additionally, clarify phrases like "convince the jury" by rephrasing to something like "provide justification for their actions."
-
Use Correct Spelling:
- Detailed explanation: The essay displays a high level of spelling accuracy, with no significant errors noted. Words such as "empathy," "background," and "motivation" are spelled correctly, contributing to the overall clarity of the writing.
- How to improve: While spelling is accurate, it is always beneficial to maintain this standard. Regular practice with spelling exercises or using tools like spell check can help ensure continued accuracy. Additionally, reading widely can reinforce correct spelling through exposure to correctly spelled words in context.
In summary, while the essay demonstrates a solid command of vocabulary with a score of 7 for Lexical Resource, there is room for improvement in terms of vocabulary range and precision. By diversifying word choice and ensuring clarity in expression, the essay can achieve a higher band score.
Band điểm Grammatical Range & Accuracy ước lượng: 8
Band Score for Grammatical Range and Accuracy: 8
-
Use a Wide Range of Structures:
- Detailed explanation: The essay demonstrates a commendable variety of sentence structures. For instance, the use of complex sentences such as "This means some offenders would get away with their offense, resulting in unintended injustice" showcases an ability to connect ideas effectively. Additionally, the essay employs conditional structures, as seen in "if people knew they would convince the jury," which adds depth to the argument. However, while the range is strong, there are instances of simpler sentence structures that could be enhanced for greater sophistication.
- How to improve: To further diversify sentence structures, consider incorporating more compound-complex sentences. For example, combining clauses that express contrasting ideas can enhance the flow and complexity of the argument. Additionally, varying the placement of subordinate clauses can create more engaging sentences. For instance, instead of "On the one hand, there are good grounds for a fixed punishment to be adopted," you might say, "While some argue for fixed punishments, good grounds exist for their adoption."
-
Use Grammar and Punctuation Accurately:
- Detailed explanation: The essay generally maintains a high level of grammatical accuracy, with only minor errors present. For example, the phrase "which hardly require much time for justice procedure" could be more accurately phrased as "which hardly require much time in the justice process." Additionally, punctuation is mostly correct, but there are moments where commas could enhance clarity, such as in the sentence "Offenders’ background, mental state and intention should be taken into account." A comma before "and" (Oxford comma) could improve readability.
- How to improve: To improve grammatical accuracy, focus on refining sentence constructions that may lead to ambiguity. Regular practice with complex sentences can help solidify understanding of grammatical rules. Additionally, reviewing punctuation rules, particularly regarding the use of commas in lists and complex sentences, will enhance clarity. Reading essays with a focus on punctuation can also provide insight into effective usage.
Overall, the essay demonstrates a strong command of grammatical range and accuracy, meriting a band score of 8. Continued practice in diversifying sentence structures and refining grammatical precision will further elevate the quality of writing.
Bài sửa mẫu
People hold conflicting views about imposing suitable penalties for criminals. Some argue that each type of crime should incur fixed punishments, while others believe that the specific circumstances and motivations behind an offense should always be taken into account when deciding on the penalty. This essay will first thoroughly justify both views before presenting my final thoughts on a combination of these two approaches.
On the one hand, there are strong arguments for adopting fixed punishments. This contributes to a fair justice system, as all individuals are aware of the consequences based on their illegal actions. Such a system minimizes the risk of discrimination and consequently has a deterrent effect on society. By contrast, if individuals were able to convince the jury of a reason for their crime or present a mitigating narrative about their circumstances, the final judgment could become arbitrary. This means some offenders might evade appropriate consequences, leading to unintended injustices.
On the other hand, those advocating for consideration of the circumstances surrounding a crime and the motivations behind it present valid points. They argue that each case is unique, and a one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient to achieve fairness. Factors such as an offender’s background, mental state, and intentions should be considered so that the judge can provide the most appropriate response, fostering a more humane system. For example, a person killing in self-defense cannot be equated with a serial killer, and a first-time thief who steals to feed their family should receive more understanding than those who repeatedly steal for personal gain.
Upon weighing both views, I believe that a combination of these two proposals is essential. Fixed sentences should be adopted for minor crimes such as shoplifting or speeding, which do not require extensive judicial processes and often result in minor consequences. In contrast, serious crimes such as embezzlement and murder, which involve severe implications and complex scenarios, should be addressed with customized punishments to ensure equity.
