Increasing Number of Serious Crimes Committed Each Year, and The Best Way Is to Use the Death Penalty as a Deterrent - IELTS Essay

Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Model Essay 1

The perennial increase in grave offenses globally has sparked a contentious debate regarding the most effective deterrent—whether it is the implementation of the death penalty or the adoption of alternative rehabilitative measures. On one hand, the death penalty is advocated as a potent deterrent, while on the other, comprehensive rehabilitation programs are considered more humane and effective in the long term.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that it acts as a formidable deterrent, with the rationale that the fear of losing one's life is the ultimate discouragement against committing heinous acts. For example, countries like China and Iran, where the death penalty is frequently applied, often report lower rates of certain types of serious crimes, suggesting a potential deterrent effect. Critics, however, contest the morality and irrevocability of this measure, highlighting cases of wrongful executions and the lack of conclusive evidence proving its deterrent superiority over life imprisonment. They also raise concerns about the impact on justice systems, arguing that the possibility of error is too great a risk to justify its use.

Conversely, the rehabilitation perspective focuses on addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour, such as poverty, lack of education, and substance abuse. Advocates for this approach argue that rehabilitation, through programs aimed at skill development, psychological support, and social reintegration, not only reduces the likelihood of reoffending but also contributes to the fabric of society by transforming offenders into productive members. The success of rehabilitation-centric models in countries like Norway, where reoffending rates are remarkably low, supports the argument for its effectiveness. Proponents further contend that this method fosters a more humane and sustainable criminal justice system, emphasizing healing and reintegration over retribution, thereby benefiting both individuals and communities at large.

In conclusion, the death penalty and rehabilitation each have merits and flaws—capital punishment deters serious crimes but carries ethical risks, while rehabilitation addresses root causes but might not deter all. Therefore, blending both methods could offer a balanced solution to the complexities of crime and punishment.

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Model Essay 2

The escalating prevalence of severe criminal activities annually ignites debates on effective deterrence methods. While some advocate for the reinstatement of the death penalty as a deterrent, others argue for alternative strategies. This essay will examine both perspectives, emphasizing the efficacy and ethical considerations of capital punishment versus rehabilitative measures.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that its ultimate finality serves as a formidable deterrent against serious crimes. They contend that the fear of losing one’s life is a powerful motivator for potential offenders to refrain from engaging in criminal activities. For instance, countries like Singapore, which rigorously enforce capital punishment, report significantly lower rates of serious crimes compared to nations where it is abolished. Advocates maintain that the death penalty not only prevents the recurrence of crime by the perpetrator but also sets a stark example for others who might contemplate similar offenses. Furthermore, they believe that this measure reassures the public, strengthening the justice system's perceived efficacy and maintaining social order.

Conversely, critics of the death penalty assert that the solution to crime does not lie in retribution but in prevention and rehabilitation. They suggest that improving socio-economic conditions, enhancing educational opportunities, and offering better mental health support can effectively reduce the inclination towards crime. For example, Scandinavian countries focus on rehabilitation and social reintegration, boasting some of the lowest recidivism rates globally. These critics argue that such measures not only prevent crime sustainably but also preserve human rights and dignity, fostering a more humane society. Additionally, they emphasize that rehabilitative strategies address the root causes of criminal behaviour, promoting long-term changes in individuals and reducing future criminality.

In conclusion, while the death penalty may deter crime to some extent, the evidence suggests that long-term prevention through societal improvements and rehabilitative approaches is more effective and ethically sound. A balanced criminal justice system should prioritize rehabilitation over retribution, aiming to transform individuals and, by extension, society.

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score

Model Essay 3

As the severity of crimes is increasing each year, some people believe that death penalty should be used as a measure of dissuasion. Others think that different approaches should be taken. While death sentence is a strong measure to intimidate criminals against committing severe crimes, social reintegration programs offer a holistic alternative to prevent felonies.

The death penalty remains enforced in various countries worldwide. In some U.S. states, it is applied for severe offenses such as murder, genocide, or treason. Similarly, in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, capital punishment is used for crimes associated with drug consumption, drug trafficking, and firearm offenses. Despite being a contentious measure, the low incidence rates of these crimes in these nations suggest that the death penalty effectively deters serious offenses. This correlation underscores the argument that the ultimate penalty may play a critical role in maintaining law and order by preventing grave crimes.

Conversely, preventative measures can be taken to prevent criminals from engaging in more serious activities. Most of the grave crimes are preceded by low level crimes such as robberies, infractions, or drug possession. Therefore, an effective strategy to lower the amount of serious crimes is getting criminals into offender rehabilitation programs. This initiative can help them address different challenges they face like housing, education, or employment. For instance, a recent study from the University of Michigan, found a positive correlation between lower numbers of crime recidivism, and reinsertion of former criminals into society. If we could get ex-convicts to live a normal life back into society, we would be able to observe a decrease in the number of severe crimes.

Delinquency is getting worse every year. One way to tackle this ongoing situation is to apply death penalty in serious offences to discourage criminals to commit serious crimes. However, other less severe measures can be applied for the same purpose. Emphasis in rehabilitation and reintegration to society may curtail recidivism and keep former criminals away from felonies.

Get your personalised IELTS Essay Feedback from a former examiner

Download IELTS eBooks, get everything you need to achieve a high band score