Some people think sending criminals to prison is not an effective way to deal with them. Education and training are better. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

The debate centres around whether or not preventative measures are more effective than incarceration is one that is central to our society, and to our policy decisions regarding criminals. In this essay, I will explain why I personally believe we should focus our efforts on education and training rather than incarceration.

Firstly, there is simply no evidence that incarceration effectively reduces the chance that criminals will engage in crime after release - in fact, there is plenty of evidence against this idea. After serving their time in jail, ex-convicts often face large difficulties reentering the workforce as a result of punitive entry barriers, with the end result being a certain relapse as they have no other choice but crime. Countries with harsh punishment such as the US, for example, do much worse than countries such as Norway in terms of the recidivism rate; one could argue that the latter has been able to excel because of its educational approach to prisoners.

Secondly, education and training programs in prisons have been shown to dramatically increase the chances of inmates becoming productive members of society after their release, as employers are more likely to hire them. A lot of the inmates suffer as a result of being from low-income, poor education backgrounds, with no viable skill set needed for the job market. Job training and further education programs, thus, have been proven to provide inmates with jobs and prevent them from relapsing into crime in countries such as Switzerland.

Overall, I argue that given the evidence, incarceration is much worse than education and training at reducing crime; therefore, I argue that the latter is a more effective way to deal with criminals.

Sample 2:

Incarceration is one of the primary forms of punishment for the commission of felony, but many have questioned its effectiveness. Others believe that providing education and training is a better way. Both sides have their merits, and I think how we should deal with lawbreakers largely depends upon the age and the type of offense.

Education and training are more suitable options for offenders who are young or when the crimes are misdemeanors because such actions will give them a chance to be productive members of society. If people who commit crimes in their teens or their twenties are sent to jail, they will be out mostly by their thirties, the prime working age. With years of training lost due to prison time, ex-convicts have limited unemployment options and become a drag to the community. In addition, misdemeanors happen mostly because of a lack of general knowledge. There are not many compulsory legal courses in schools and universities. By enlightening them through proper teaching methodologies, society can lower the chance of future reoffences.

However, certain crimes must result in prison sentences to protect the well-being of society. Cases involving homicides or aggravated assaults are best dealt with by locking up the perpetrators in confined spaces to prevent further life losses. They might get some education and training, but still must be kept away from the community. Drug traffickers and arms dealers are even more dangerous. These people are beyond redemption and should serve the maximum sentences, including capital punishment. Another class of criminals that are often overlooked is the white-collar offenders, smart people that use their minds to cheat and dupe the market. Examples include tax evasion, insider trading, or Ponzi schemes. There is no use in trying to educate and train this group. Prison is the best deterrent for their actions.

In conclusion, the ultimate purpose of any law is to create a better society, so for each crime, we should strive to find the most appropriate action that reduces any future harm. Opportunities should be given to the young and the inexperienced while organized and white-collar crimes should be heavily punished.

Sample 3:

Many people believe that the reduction of the crime rate will be achieved more effectively through better education rather than prison sentences. I disagree with this view, because I consider that both approaches have their own distinctive merits and should each play an integral role in tackling crime.

On the one hand, I would argue that prison is effective in dealing with offenders. One reason is that a person who commits a crime must learn that unlawful actions have consequences. Murderers, for instance, must be imprisoned for many years and such a punishment may act as a deterrent. They know that they will face loss of freedom, social isolation and separation from their loved ones if they carry out such a criminal act. Another reason is that when serious offenders are behind bars, they are no longer a danger to society and people can walk in the streets or relax in their homes more safely.

On the other hand, I consider that education has a complementary role to play. Firstly, in schools, students should study some aspects of the law which affect their lives. Having some knowledge of the law, students are better prepared to avoid situations which may involve them in crime or becoming a victim. For example, youngsters must study the important laws about driving and road safety. Secondly, in prisons themselves, educational programmes must aim to provide prisoners with skills and qualifications to find work when they are released.

I believe that prison sentences are one essential weapon in the fight against crime, and I disagree that providing better education alone is a more effective solution to reduce the crime rate.

Sample 4:

An increase in crime has been a pressing issue in civilization. Some people argue that instead of incarceration, providing education and training is a better way to solve this problem. However, I think we should deal with lawbreakers depending on the age and the type of offense.

On the one hand, I agree that inflicting a criminal to jail is an effective way to punish them since they incur a punishment suitable for the offense. In this way, it keeps them far away from society, which ensures the safety of other well-being citizens. For example, violent offenders such as homicides, or white-collar offenders who are smart enough to use their minds to cheat and dupe the market need to be isolated from the community, so prison is the best deterrent for their actions. Moreover, strict sentences help to prevent violations. These judgments warn that criminals will be arrested, be separated from their relationships, and live in a miserable cell; hence, those who intend to break the law would reconsider their paths.

On the other hand, I believe that education and training are more suitable programs for lawbreakers who are teenagers or misdemeanours. For instance, many teenagers commit offence because of a lack of general knowledge, so legal courses in schools and universities will help them to distinguish between the standard and unusual behaviours, which can reduce the crime rate. Moreover, as poverty is one of the causes of crime, providing job training allows them to find a job. Besides, educating criminals may help them to integrate into the community and live a better life after they finish their punishments.

In conclusion, the purpose of ways is to create a better humanity, so we should find the most appropriate action to reduce any further harm. While white-collar and violent crimes should be heavily punished, opportunities should be given to the young.