Many people are too scared to leave their home because of a fear of crime.
Some people think that more should be done to prevent crime, whereas others feel that nothing can be done.
What are your views?
It is quite obvious that the rate of crimes are increasing day by day in all societies in the world, but I personally do believe that there are a lot which can be done by both the governments and the individuals to reduce the crimes in communities.
A lot of important measures, on the one hand, can be taken by the governments in order to reduce or even eradicate different types of crimes .First, governments can introduce more police forces everywhere to monitor people s activities and stop them from committing crimes. Second, the state can apply new technologies such as surveillance cameras in the streets, shopping centers, restaurants and all public places to cease criminals .Third, strict punishments on criminals can have really preventive and deterrent effects on all age groups in society , so by using harsh penalties like emprisonment,physical or financial punishments the rate of crimes can be decreased.
On the other hand, individuals in societies can be of great help to cut down on the number of crimes being committed. To my mind, the overwhelming majority of people tend to participate in activities assisting the government to keep the society a safe place for their own families and the others and for all age groups .Take as an example, most people by reporting the problems to police can play an indispensable role in crime-prevention activities. In addition, when people themselves care about decreasing heinous crimes in cities, it can be sort of a preventive action to harness well the situation in society by government as well.
To conclude, in order for a society to be a safe place to live in, all society members including the governments and people must take necessary measurements to keep it a crime-free place.
Violent Crime and Youngsters
Recent figures show an increase in violent crime among youngsters under the age of 18. Some psychologists claim that the basic reason for this is that children these days are not getting the social and emotional learning they need from parents and teachers.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
It has been indicated by the latest researches that there are an increase number of violence crimes throughout the young individuals under 18 years old. The reason for this phenomenon as the psychologists believe is lack of emotional and social learning by the parents and teachers. Psychologically, there are two crucial factors that making teachers and parents careless about their young children and students ate the age of 18 in learning.
Parents and teachers treat adults in serious ways during the learning process for two points. First of all, they observe that these group of children do not need emotion and softness as younger children, and they really pay attention just on their academic studies and how to pass successfully from the school. Eventually, the relationships between parents, teachers and students become extremely hard without any love. Secondly, once the circumstance at the school or home is getting worse and under pressure for students, they start to hate every body around them and act negatively and violently against innocent. Consequently, teachers and parents cause people at age of 18 to be dangerous criminals in the society.
The other significant point is parents and teachers are less informative of excellent method of learning and teaching 18 years old students. Although there are several of resources that could teach people the intelligent approach of emotional and social learning for adult, these teachers are still not professional at it. In Canada for instance, Chapter, who is the famous library, sells the newest and easiest books of dealing with secondary schools students, yet criminal behaviors have reached the peak at schools, streets and public places. Lastly, this problem is difficult to be solved without increasing the awareness among teachers and parents of the importance of reading about emotional social learning.
In Conclusion, to decrease the number of crime violence among 18 years old individuals, parents and teachers should teach them in inspirational and friendly methods. I realize that strict communication and narrow education are the influential factors for making these youth criminals.
Please feedback on my IELTS Essay
Causes and Solutions
In many countries, the amount of crime is increasing.
What do you think are the main cause of crime?
How can we deal with those causes?
In most of the third world countries, illegal acts are enhancing at a higher pace. More freedom for youth and poverty are the main causes for increasing crime. Strict laws and regulations, proper education & employment could be the some of the possible solutions for this problem.
Firstly, there are no restrictions for young people now a days. Adolescents are prone to commit crime as they think what they are doing is right. For instance, the cases being registered for rape turn out to be committed by an age group of 14-18 years. Secondly, in the under developed nations, poverty & unemployment seems to be another reason for offences like robbery & theft. For the greed of money, poor people tend to perform illegal acts. To exemplify, if we tune to any news channel, we’ll come across at least two such cases daily.
Now, let us discuss the possible solutions which could help reduce the crime rate. To begin with, any country should have strict laws and regulations against criminals. If a proper legal system is running, people would be frightened before doing any kind of unlawful act. The fear of hard punishment would restrain them from carrying out any kind of offence. In addition to that, industrialization would aid more & more people to get employment leading to a rise in income & hence reduced crime. Education & awareness to young children should be promoted by the government to help them understand the difference between right & wrong.
A ray of hope can be seen from the above solutions, if incorporated in a successful manner could diminish the illegal acts to a great extent. As explained above, every cloud has a silver lining. To conclude, in my opinion, harsh laws & punishment against criminals and better education & more job opportunities can be considered as effective ways to deal with these problems.
Help this student to improve their IELTS score by feeding back below on the Causes of and Solutions to Crime Essay.
Or if you think it is good, just let them know!
Crime is a big problem in the world; many believe that nothing can be done to prevent it.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The contemporary world has witnessed an increase in crime rates earlier. This is a prevailing and worrying aspect that made many to believe it's impossible to prevent it. However, in my own perspective, I think there are certain methods that could tackle these felonies and slash its growth.
It's essential to look up for the fundamental and the root cause of the dilemma. For example, the relationship between committing a crime and poverty should be considered; as poverty is increasing, crime rate is increasing too. Besides that, the social issue of unemployment can lead the individual or any party to commit a certain crime, such as robbery, human smuggling, drug trade etc. In addition, the rise in inflation number has a direct correlation with unemployment and poverty too. As a result, the prevailing scenario leads to insufficient availability of job opportunities for the nation. These people will tend to go off the tangent and become law breakers in order to afford money for their survival or other real purposes. Statistics have shown that dealing with bribes between people is specifically the most committed illegal act in today's world. And eventually, this is perpetuated to spread corruption and seize human rights in an unfair way.
Despite all the horrific crimes going on, genuine measures should be taken into account against those felonies to reduce crime rates in the region. Local governments should have determinable impacts on poor people to uplift their lives. This can be done by providing more jobs to initiate the economical industries to originate more job opportunities. The government of each city should also submit straight laws to the citizens. These law must involve strict punishments that oblige the offender to think again before committing any crime. Moreover, good moral education and parental guidance improves the individual's personal perspective and point of view in the society.
In conclusion, I think crime rates cannot be diminished but alleviate. And by considering some measures and precautions, the world would become a better place.
Please comment on my essay
Ex-Prisoners Advising Teenagers About Crime
Please Evaluate and point out mistakes in my crime essay.
Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
There is no doubt that crime rates have dramatically increased over the last few years. Some criminals managed themselves well while they stayed in prison. One of the reasons is that they have seen the problems and sacrifices they have to make. Some people argue that these are the best people to create awareness about crimes in teenagers. However, others state that a person with a criminal background will not a leave good impression on people's minds.
Firstly, it is the duty of governments and the people to identify the aspects of crimes in teenagers. After that, there should be workshops and seminars which highlight the consequences of committing crimes. It is also the responsibility of parents and guardians to have an eye on their children's activities. With little effort, one can stop many criminal activities in the surroundings.
Secondly, people who were the part of immoral doings become good citizens after prison so could help teenager in eradicating this sin. They have personally experienced all the suffering they have to go through after their crime. They know the possible reason, why and how youngsters are involved in such cruel doings. Their worlds would leave undeniable impressions on people's minds and will help to eliminate crime from the society.
To conclude, I strongly believe that once a criminal, not always a criminal. If one has regret about his past and has changed himself, one should be treated like a normal human being. Furthermore, they could help teenagers from crime while telling them about their sacrifices of time, health and family.
CCTV in Public Places
Please, I am going to take IELTS on 14th of March but still not sure about writing Task 2 so can you write feedback for a crime essay about CCTV in public places I wrote.
In many cities the use of video cameras in public places is being increased in order to reduce crime, but some people believe that these measures restrict our individual freedom.
Do the benefits of increased security outweigh the drawbacks?
Nowadays, with the world vigorously fighting against the crime, public surveillance devices i.e. CCTVs are one of the few tools to manage it. However, privacy concerns and social anxiety caused by CCTVs cannot be neglected and need consideration.
Initially, these devices reflect many encouraging advantages. To clarify, they can come in handy with top security matters and provide undeniable facts for the cases. Furthermore, with the presence of cameras in public places the upcoming crimes can be prevented as criminals will be scared of revealing their identity. So, this powerful tool can bring many benefits to the society.
On the contrary, there can be factor with the neutral benefit. As CCTVs reduce the labor cost by strengthening the economy and bringing profit, the unemployment and underemployment directly will be influenced though. Besides the hypothesis that human being replaced by technology will gain in reputation too.
Moreover, if used not appropriately CCTVs may serve for wrong purposes. The improper use of them for personal or political reasons cannot be impossible, can it? Also it is highly likely that using them in public places causes social anxiety associated with discomfort, moral pressure thus affecting the efficiency of the job. For example, you can talk, sing or hum while working which makes it interesting and under surveillance you simply cannot show this eccentric behavior which makes the work boring and inefficient.
On balance, CCTVs in public places would be such a good idea for our security and economy but some of the negative key elements should be taken into account before mass application of these devices in public places.
I know this is way over the word count. But I keep getting 6 on my writing. Can someone please tell me if this is okay for an essay?
Some people think that the best way to reduce crime is to give longer prison sentences. Others, however, believe there are better alternative ways of reducing crime.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
A lot of people believe we need to reduce crime. Some people believe we can do that by giving inmates longer time in prison, while others believe there are other ways we can accomplish reducing crime. This essay will explain both sides and give an opinion.
The first view states that people think we should give longer prison sentences. People believe if someone has committed crime they should stay in prison longer. We need to increase penalty rates by law. They did something wrong so the prisoners should have to pay for what they have done and therefore they will be staying out of trouble in prison. In prison they have programs that help inmates to make better decisions in life. For example, they have counsellor and can help people look at getting a trade job when they are released from prison.
The second view point says some people think there are other ways to reduce crime in the community other than longer prison sentences. One thing we could do is having groups put in the community. For example, making it mandatory that people who have committed a crime go to a counsellor. Another thing we could do is helping them get jobs and therefore they do not feel they need to commit a crime to get by in life. For example, people will steal because they may not be able to afford money for groceries.
In my opinion I believe there are other ways for people to receive the help they need so they do not commit crimes other than jail. No matter what people do not want to go to prison but they still end up there. We need to look at other ways for keeping them out. It may be the only thing they know and some prisoners spend half there life there. Keeping them in prison does not teach them anything, it just keeps them there longer but eventually they will get out and do the same thing again cause that is all they know.
In conclusion there are many different ways we can keep crime low. Some people believe longer prison sentences but I believe there is another alternative than that.
Richard Wright was a young professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri-St. Louis when he got a rude awakening from a student in one of his classes. “[He] came up to me after a lecture, during which I was talking about what criminals were really like,” Wright recalled, “and he more or less said to me, ‘With all due respect, you haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about.'”
That was in the early 1980s and the student, Dietrich Smith, turned out to be a former criminal who decided to turn things around after he took six bullets and lost the use of his legs. More than 30 years later, neither Wright nor Smith can remember exactly what bothered Smith about Wright’s lecture that day, but the interaction eventually led to one of the biggest ethnographic studies of working criminals ever conducted.
Beginning in the late 1980s, Wright interviewed 105 burglars and 86 armed robbers — all people that Smith connected him to. These were people who were actively breaking the law and, at the time, getting away with it. They were not informants for the police or prisoners who had been caught.
The interviews suggested that people trying to prevent crime don’t always understand how people think when they are committing crimes. For evidence of this, look no further than the policy of deterrence — the basis for most of the punishments our criminal justice system doles out. Whether it’s prison itself, longer prison sentences, or sending more people to prison for smaller crimes, these prescribed consequences are usually predicated on the idea that a would-be criminal will consider them and then think twice: “Nope, I’m not going to do this,” they’ll rationally decide.” I don’t want that to happen to me.”
Unfortunately, the work of Wright and Smith suggests that real people don’t often make that kind of careful deliberation before they rob somebody, and subsequent decades’ worth of research on the effects of deterrence-based punishments — including mandatory sentencing and the death penalty — have failed to prove that they do anything to reduce crime.
That doesn’t mean criminals aren’t thinking, though. The people Wright and Smith spoke to made plenty of decisions before, during, and after the crimes they committed. It’s just that they were working from a set of choices that make the criminal act seem a bit more rational than it might to the average law-abiding citizen. The people he interviewed were often involved in alcohol and drug use, for example, and didn’t have jobs or any real source of status other than their standing with friends. They didn’t see themselves as having futures. Amid pressing imperatives like feeding a drug habit, earning the respect of peers, or just meeting everyday expenses, robbery and burglary were, for them, simply solutions.
In his book “Burglars on the Job,” Wright described many of his interviewees as people for whom crime became an almost inevitable choice because of other decisions they’d already made. “It is not so much that these actors consciously choose to commit crimes as that they elect to get involved in situations that drive them toward lawbreaking,” he wrote. In those kind of circumstances, when a person is desperate, they’re not usually considering sentencing guidelines. They know what they’re doing is illegal, but that’s about it. Their desperation is the most important thing.
That doesn’t mean they don’t consider some risks. Burglars, for instance, generally avoided houses where they thought people might be home, Wright, now professor and chair of criminal justice and criminology at Georgia State University, also told me. They were afraid of what might happen if they went in. “It scares them to death,” Wright said.
Too little research has thus far been done on the long-term impacts of increased police presence — sometimes called proactive policing — in high-crime areas.
That matches up with what Daniel Nagin, a criminologist and statistician at Carnegie Mellon, has learned about deterrence strategies. He’s published two reviews of the research on deterrence and was the co-editor of the 2012 National Research Council report on deterrence and the death penalty. We really have no idea whether the presence of the death penalty increases homicides, decreases homicides, or has no effect at all, he told me. This is, essentially, the same place the research sat back in 1978 when the National Research Council issued a report heavily critiquing the methods used in a 1975 study that claimed each execution deterred seven or eight homicides.
There were many problems with that 1975 study, and many with the studies that have come since. But one chief issue is that they all drastically overestimate how easily anyone — whether that’s a person committing a grievous crime, or a person calculating the effect of the death penalty on such crimes — can evaluate the actual risk of receiving the death penalty. There are just too many moving parts involved in that risk analysis, from the local political climate, to the number of previous executions in a given state (and, thus, the data available to analyze). Risk of conviction is also a separate matter from the risk of being sentenced to execution — both of which are distinct from the perceived risk of actually being executed.
Expecting anyone to have an accurate grasp of this complex matrix of risks and consequences is preposterous, Nagin said.
Research does show, however, that you can deter crime by nudging would-be criminals to weigh the odds of getting caught in the first place. Like the St. Louis burglars, most people are going to avoid committing crimes in situations where somebody is likely to catch them. It’s the reason liquor stores are robbed more frequently than banks, Nagin said.
Studies of “hot spots” — addresses and intersections that are epicenters for outsized portions of a city’s overall crime — have shown that it’s possible to curb crime this way. In one randomized experiment from 1995, researchers randomly assigned increased police presence to some Minneapolis hot spots. The areas that received the intervention saw a 6-to-13 percent reduction in crime calls. In other words, people might commit fewer crimes if you make it more likely that they will be caught.
So, more cops less crime then, right? Possibly — though Nagin was quick to distinguish the hot spots strategy from so-called “broken windows” policing, the theory that catching and prosecuting perpetrators of small crimes — like riding the bus without paying, jaywalking, or public urination — will, over time, deter big crimes from happening. “There’s no evidence that broken windows policing is an effective way of deterring crime,” he told me. It’s easy to see why: If cities are judging deterrence based on the number of arrests, they’ve already failed. If deterrence is working, after all, there should be fewer arrests, not more.
Instead, Nagin emphasized the effect the mere presence of police can have in a high-crime area. It’s not necessarily about police even doing anything. It’s just about them being there, acting as sentinels on the neighborhood.
But even that is not a foolproof plan for a safe and happy community. After all, where some people see an increased police presence as a hedge against crime, others might see an oppressive force — even something akin to an invading army.
Today, Dietrich Smith still lives in St. Louis, where he is a criminal justice analyst, and the diversity director for Chaminade College Preparatory School. While certainly some people who live in high-crime neighborhoods would like to see more police on the street, he told me, there’s a fine line between that and the awareness that the police who work in those neighborhoods don’t always treat people of color with respect. “There are so many people I know in those high crime areas who are more than willing to work with the police department,” he said. “But when you have incident after incident of them clearly sticking together when you clearly say ‘that’s not right’ … it has a snowball effect.”
The bottom line is that too little research has thus far been done on the long-term impacts of increased police presence — sometimes called proactive policing — in high-crime areas, according to Charles Manski, an economist at Northwestern University who studies public policy and uncertainty. He’s part of a National Academies committee that’s writing a report on proactive policing. There are no conclusions yet, and the report won’t be out for another year or two, but Manski believes those policies can have multiple effects — some intended, some unintended.
These lawn signs in St. Louis might do more to deter crime than increased police presence. They say: “I will tell on you.” (Visual by CC/Paul Sableman)
It’s possible, even, to succeed at an intended goal in the short term, while undermining it in the long term. “You might deter certain crimes and lessen the legitimacy of police,” he said. “For a lot of people it’s hard to deal with anything where two forces go in opposite directions. We want simple stories. More policing bad, or more policing good.”
The reality, of course, is messier — with outcomes hinging not just on whether an area is policed, but how it’s policed — and whether the sentinels are also building community trust, showing respect, and gaining goodwill.
As an alternative to adding more police, Smith suggested that communities themselves can work to increase the perception among would-be criminals that they face real risks of getting caught. He pointed to a group in St. Louis, called We Must Stop Killing Each Other, which is putting up yard and window signs all over high-crime neighborhoods.
“People say ‘it’s just a yard sign’ — no it’s not,” Smith said. “Those criminals know every sign in front of those homes — those are potential people who are going to tell on you.”
Maggie Koerth-Baker is an American science journalist, former New York Times Magazine columnist, and current senior science reporter for the website FiveThirtyEight.
Decades’ worth of research on the effects of deterrence-based punishments, including mandatory sentencing and the death penalty, have failed to prove that they do anything to reduce crime.
Where some people see an increased police presence as a hedge against crime, others might see something akin to an invading army.