In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment

In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment. Do you agree or disagree? hay nhất giúp bạn có thêm tài liệu tham khảo để viết bài luận bằng Tiếng Anh hay hơn.

Đề bài: In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment. Do you agree or disagree?

In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment - mẫu 1

Recently, the debate surrounding the appropriate punishment for lawbreakers has been gaining significant traction. While some have advocated for sweeping punishments, others support giving warnings for minor offences. In my estimation, I agree with issuing a warning for low-level offences as sometimes legal punishments are disproportionate to the severity of the crime.

Admittedly, there are clear instances where punishments must be enforced. The inherent intent of any punishment, regardless of how harsh it might be, is to dissuade potential criminals from breaking the law. Therefore, when citizens respect the law due to fear of punishment, society as a whole is safer. To give an example, in maintaining a safe and steady flow of traffic, speed limits are put in place on most roads to prevent speeding and potential accidents. When a person commits a speeding offence, that person can be punished by the revocation of their driving licence to deter them from driving recklessly and by extension becoming a danger to society. Thus, it is understandable why some would want to advocate for imposing punishments unilaterally on offenders as a form of strong deterrence from future criminal activity.

However, the case for applying a stern warning in some instances is stronger since it can be more effective in preventing crimes. By educating low-level offenders about the grave consequences of continuing to commit affronts to the law, they will come out more knowledgeable of the law and its role in keeping people safe from harm. Therefore, these offenders will be less likely to recommit criminal offences and consequently jeopardise the lives of others. To cite an example, a survey conducted by University College London in 2012 has found that the majority of British people who were cited for public intoxication and were subsequently warned of their behaviour have not committed the same offence again. From this data, it is clear that a warning is stronger and more humane than a legal punishment.

In conclusion, although enforcing punishments has its place in instilling respect for the law, I would firmly contend that sometimes a simple yet stern warning is more than enough to discourage people from breaking the law. In the future, once these rehabilitative measures are enacted, a society can become simultaneously safer and more aware.

In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment - mẫu 2

The debate surrounding the appropriate response to lawbreaking - whether by way of punishment or a warning - stirs considerable discourse. Advocates of a lenient approach argue for the educational benefits of warnings over punitive measures. This essay contends that while the severity of the crime should dictate the response, minor offenses can often be more effectively addressed with warnings, fostering learning and rehabilitation.

Firstly, warnings for minor infractions serve an educational purpose, guiding individuals back onto the right path without the stigmatizing effects of punishment. For example, a first-time traffic violation might result more effectively in corrective behavior through educational traffic courses rather than fines or points on a license. Such measures not only inform the offender about the dangers of their actions but also allow for personal growth and understanding, ultimately contributing to safer communities. This approach prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution, recognizing that human errors can be opportunities for learning rather than just occasions for punishment.

Secondly, the use of warnings for minor offenses can alleviate the burden on the judicial system, reserving resources for more serious crimes. Over-reliance on punitive measures for every legal transgression can lead to an overwhelmed legal system, where jails are overcrowded and court calendars are congested. By issuing warnings for less serious offenses, the system can focus on rehabilitating serious offenders, thus ensuring a more efficient allocation of judicial and correctional resources.

In conclusion, while the nature and severity of the offense should guide the response, warnings, in lieu of punishment, can often offer a more constructive solution for minor infractions. This approach not only aids in the educational development of the individual but also enhances judicial efficiency. By fostering a system that values rehabilitation and understanding over automatic punishment, society can create an environment where minor missteps are seen as opportunities for growth, thereby contributing to the overall health and safety of the community.

In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment - mẫu 3

In contemporary society, the approach to handling lawbreakers oscillates between reprimand and punishment. This essay contends that, depending on the context and the severity of the offense, issuing warnings can be more beneficial than immediate punitive measures. Key discussion points will revolve around the effectiveness of warnings in minor offenses for rehabilitation purposes and the impact of punishment on repeat offenses.

Firstly, warnings serve as a preliminary step in the correctional process for minor infractions, offering individuals a chance to amend their behavior without the stigma of a criminal record. This method acknowledges human fallibility and supports the notion of second chances. For example, a first-time offender caught for a minor transgression, such as a traffic violation, might be more inclined to adhere to rules if given a warning coupled with educational guidance, rather than a fine or jail time. This approach not only aids in the individual's understanding of the law but also fosters a sense of personal responsibility and societal respect.

Secondly, the punitive system often fails to deter repeat offenses and can exacerbate criminal tendencies. Research indicates that prisons often serve as breeding grounds for further criminal activity, where inmates learn more sophisticated means of breaking the law. In contrast, restorative justice models that focus on warnings and community service can reintegrate individuals into society, equipping them with skills and support systems to avoid future infractions. Such measures not only reduce recidivism rates but also alleviate the burden on penal systems and taxpayer resources.

In conclusion, while punishment is necessary for maintaining law and order, its indiscriminate application can lead to negative outcomes. A balanced approach, favoring warnings for minor offenses, can promote rehabilitation and prevent the cycle of reoffending. This strategy underscores the importance of discernment in law enforcement, advocating for measures that support rather than penalize, fostering a more harmonious and just society.

In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment - mẫu 4

Some feel that lawbreakers ought to be entitled to a warning instead of strict sanctions. I strongly disagree with this statement, and I think only exemplary punishments can be deterrent for the future crimes.

Punishment is needed for most crimes. The various justifications for punishment typically include deterrence, rehabilitation, public safety, and justice itself. Of these, deterrence is the most often cited and effective measure to curb the future crime. Many criminals are aware of a severe punishment, which bars them from committing the crime, and this ensures a minimum degree of public safety. If a person knew they would only receive a warning for a more serious infraction, then there would almost undoubtedly be more crime. Even in the case of negligible offenses, stronger punishments that are not part of one’s permanent record would better curb future criminality.

Furthermore, it is seen to be too light if people only be warned after breaking any law, as some people might not take a verbal warning seriously, resulting in not getting the lessons learned. For example, there was a time when the Taiwan government promoted a traffic law around 10 years ago, stating that all scooter drivers should wear helmets when driving on the roads. After half a year later, the car accident rates remained the same and it was surprisingly found that near two-thirds of the motorbike riders still did not use any helmet during riding, resulting in many inevitable car accidents which could have been possibly prevented. The main reason behind this was the people who did not wear a helmet and got away with only a verbal warning; instead of being punished-either pay the financial penalty or go to prison. As a result, only a small proportion (33%) of the scooter drivers strictly followed this traffic rule during that time, and the rest simply ignored its presence.

To conclude, it is always a better idea to give punishments to the people who try to break the law, as only a strong penalty can make them remember not to repeat the crime and also helps them to minimise the potential hazards of all kinds to the society.

In some cases, people who break the law should be warned instead of receiving punishment - mẫu 5

Whether warnings should replace legal punishments in certain cases has become a topic of debate. From my viewpoint, I firmly advocate the idea that minor offenses and first-time offenders can be diverted from prosecution.

On the one hand, it is undeniable that punishments are imperative in some instances. First, punishments are efficacious in upholding the legal system. By instilling fear of retribution in potential criminals, punishments help dissuade wrongdoings, thus ensuring security for the society. Secondly, punishments are just desserts for re-offenders. This is because they were well-aware of the consequences of their crimes, yet they decided to fall back into old habits. For these recidivists, education alone would be insufficient while stronger punitive measures should be imposed.

On the other hand, diverting first-time and minor offenders from prosecution has some positives in preventing crimes. Firstly, diversion will save legal enforcers time and effort. Sometimes, trivial cases such as shoplifting will get low-level penalties even if they are brought to court. Therefore, by giving out notices for minor offences, the police can allot more time for more serious crimes. Furthermore, rehabilitative measures can have positive impacts on reducing crime rates. Sometimes, people who break laws are unintentional, in these cases, proper education is appropriate. For instance, a research conducted in London in 2015 has proven that those cautioned were 50 percent less likely to reoffend as compared to those who were fined by a court. Moreover, warnings give young adults a greater chance to grow out of crime, since having a clean record will open them up too many job opportunities instead of resorting to crime to make a living.

All in all, though punishments are needed to sustain the legal system, I believe that giving warnings is more effective in discouraging lawbreakers.

Xem thêm các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay khác:

• Some people believe that studying at university or college is the best route to a successful career, while others believe that it is better to get a job straight after school. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

• Universities and colleges are now offering qualifications through distance learning from the Internet rather than teachers in the classroom. Do you think the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

• Some people believe that studying in a college or a university is the best way for students to prepare for their future career. However, others think they should leave school as soon as possible to develop their career through work experience. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

• Some people think that good health is very important to every person, so medical services should not be run by profit-making companies. Do the advantages of private health care outweigh the disadvantages?

• Research into new types of medicine and treatments are essential for improving health and dealing with diseases. Who do you think should fund these researches: private companies, individuals or governments?

---