内容发布更新时间 : 2024/12/25 10:24:07星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。

精品资料

雅思写作教育类范文

1. In many countries, crime is increasing.What are the main reasons for this? What can be done to improve the situation?

Although it is arguably impossible to pinpoint a single cause for the recent rise in global crime, the main culprits are thought to be poverty and political oppression. A commonality between the two appears to be the dissatisfaction of a people. Thus, it is argued that global crime can be reduced through measures that promote public feelings of well-being and security. To prove this, strategies that reduce poverty and oppression will be analyzed.

Firstly, encouraging prosperity among poverty-stricken areas can be a very powerful tool when combating crime. For example, a once dangerous area of my hometown in Ottawa has undergone major infrastructural development over the past twenty years. The addition of schools, libraries and quality health facilities led to the establishment of a new economical status for the people who lived there. With the rise of this new affluence came a major fall in crime rates. This clearly shows how tackling the issue of poverty creates inroads against violations of the law.

In addition to this, providing people more political freedom can also reduce crime. For instance, over the past ten years China has increasingly allowed critical comment of its ruling party to appear in local newspapers. Despite the fact that this level of freedom pales in comparison with many other countries, it is felt this thawing of political control has done a lot to reduce crime rates across the country. Thus, providing increasing levels of political freedom can be seen as a measure to combat crime.

After analyzing the reduction of poverty and political oppression, it is felt that crime is best tackled by reducing the causes of unrest among people. By following this course of action, major reductions in global crime rates are expected.

2. Giving detailed descriptions of crime by newspaper and television, someone says it could make bad consequence; this kind of media should be restricted. To what extent do you agree or not agree?

There is no doubt that the detailed descriptions of crimes have been given by most of newspapers and television programs these days. Based on this, some people think that this is adverse for the children. This is partly because such kind of descriptions will give them a deep negative impression. Surely, I agree that detailed descriptions of crimes should be limited by the government.

Also, I believe that the detailed descriptions of crimes will increase the incidence of crimes. They point out that thousands of criminals learn how to commit a crime from TVs or films. It is well aware that the crimes in young children are increasing annually, and it would associate with a wide range of crimes which children watch every day. For example, the same means, as the films show, is similar to the crimes in the actual society, such as robbery, sexual crimes and murders.

On the other hand, other people argue that it is pointless to restrict this kind of media. They probably think that the detailed descriptions of crimes are beneficial for people to prevent crimes. It seems that people

可编辑修改

精品资料

will improve alert sense, when they see the crime means as TV programs show. However, they hardly realize that the negatives outnumber the positives. In the meanwhile, people can learn how to prevent crimes by the other means such as Internet and books.

In conclusion, I would like to express that the detailed descriptions of crimes should be restricted, but also that the government should appeal to people to learn how to keep away from crimes or dangers.

3. Prison is not a cure for crime. To reduce crime in the long-term, courts should significantly reduce prison sentences and focus on education and community work to help criminals not to re-offend. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

There are many different opinions on the best way to reduce crime. The traditional solution is to be hard on criminals and put them in prison for a very long time. An opposing view is expressed by people with more modern ideas. They think that education and job training are the long-term solutions to cutting crime. So who is right - the traditionalists or the modernists?

People in favor of reducing prison sentences often argue that prisons should not simply be places of punishment. In traditional prisons, people learn a lot about crime, so when they leave prison, they will commit more crimes. Education, however, gives people the skills to get a job when they leave prison, which means that they will probably not re-offend. Part-time work experience in the community is also very helpful as it is a step back into everyday life in society. People can be in prison, but they can also feel they are doing useful work.

On the other hand, some people argue that long prison sentences are right because the punishment should fit the crime. If, for example, someone commits a serious crime such as bank robbery, they should go to prison for a long time. They also believe that reducing prison sentences significantly reduces people's fear of prison and consequently, people will commit more crimes. People will not be frightened of going to a prison which is like a university with learning and work experience opportunities.

In short, I agree that education and community work can have an important role in helping reduce crime, but there should be strict controls on the type of community work prisoners can do - It is important to understand that some people are a real danger to society and need to stay in prison for a very long time.

4. 问题同上

As a punishment for criminals passed down generation after generation, imprisonment seems an effective deterrence. However, this is not true in dealing with the problem of soaring crime rate. So some people begin to challenge the existing practice, and suggest that education and job training should be offered to them. Personally, I am in favor of this proposal.

To start with, there is no evidence showing a direct link between the imprisonment of criminals and the decline of crime rate. On the contrary, after being in prison for some time, some criminal recommit the same error, which indicates the failure of the very intention of imprisonment. Secondly, criminals, as human beings, may become very sensitive and self-abased for the prison record, they may even lose the confidence to lead ordinary and law-abiding lives. As a result, they may write themselves off as hopeless and resume the role of

可编辑修改

精品资料

wrongdoers again. Last but not least, establishing and running too many prisons is a great financial strain for the government, which is a waste of money as well as human resources.

In contrast, education and job training is a practice embodying humanism. It gives the wrongdoers a chance to the correct their misconduct and turn over a new leaf. This is especially true for those who go astray under some negative influence. By receiving job training, criminals may make a proper living rather than gaining profit in an illegal way. It would not long before the wrongdoers realize that they are still a member of community and they are not discriminated, which helps rebuild their confidence as well as contribute to the society.

In conclusion, sending criminals to prison may serve as a deterrent rather than a solution to the problem, yet education and job training should be effective in the long run.

5. Should parents be responsible for the kids crime?

A recent report showing a 14-year-old child has killed her grandmother. The incident itself is very stunning to the public. Just as shown in the topic, crimes are not supposed to be done by younger people who are not legally responsible for what they did. What seems urgent to us is my appeals for those parents who should take the responsibility for any thing like this which should be prevented in advance.

The most sounding reason for this is child should be supervised not only by school but also by his direct custody-his parents. No matter what blame we could put on child who has limited awareness of knowing what is correct to do and what is not, parents are not free from the duty that is already endowed by the society to watch their kids growing healthily. Moreover, parents have inevitable duty to educate their kids, let them know more about legal issues and right behaviors which is their basic lesson for life. We could be sure a kid is a good kid without any discipline of their parents.

In terms of discipline, parents should also take the responsibility to face some punishment as they are supposed to be disciplined by the cruelty of society. Any kind of the crime indicated by the above itself means a lot to them and they should face the all around blames from the society and neighborhood. The loss of such a lawsuit will result in both the loss of face of their dignity and the loss of money in order to cover the compensation for the victims.

So far so good, as for the age of kids who should take legal responsibility to such crime, the law has already settled for it. Countries around the world vary greatly. There is no fixed line, but one thing is sure, as soon as you grow into adult you should be responsible for what you do in society

6. Putting criminals into prisons is not an effective way to deal with them. Instead, education and job training should be offered. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

How to handle criminals is a problem that all countries and societies face. Traditionally, the approach has been to punish them by placing them in prisons to pay for what they have done. Some, however, advocate for trying to make them better with training and education and it seems they may have a good point.

First of all, consider all the money that we have to spend to lock people up in jail. It doesn’t seem like a

可编辑修改