Weekly competition #19
01 February 2019WINNERS ANNOUNCED:
champion_duck and loving_quince
Congratulations to our winners this week, who explained their choices clearly and succinctly. We also liked how they made a choice and stood behind their opinions, rather than sitting on the fence. This can be difficult to do! Excellent work, and well done to every who entered during a very busy BNC Live build-up!
WEEKLY COMPETITION #19
This week our competition focuses on reasoning. We'd like you to choose what you think is the main reason to punish someone for a crime. Make your choice in the poll below. Then, in the comments section, explain which one you chose and why. Remember to use good reasons to explain your choice! Good reasons are true, relevant and support by evidence or examples.
For example: I chose E because if we didn't have punishments, then people would think it's okay to commit a crime because they can get away with it. For example, if you didn't risk getting a prison sentence for burglary, you might go ahead and break into someone's house because there aren't negative consequences.
Good luck! Winners will be announced on Friday.
Comments (133)
People should stop knife crime because it is bad
I chose option D because even though they may of hurt someone they do not deserve pain however if they put them in jail it would decrease the amount of violent crimes to 0%
Where is your evidence that people should stop knife crimes other than ‘bad’ because not how BNC needs you to comment about the crime issue.
I think it is bad because people loose their lives for nothing but that is not always the case.But why is it bad for you
I picked deterrence because if violent crime stops completely then there will be no need for protection or giving victims payback. Violent crime should stop completely to help society and deterrence may be the way to stop it all together as criminals will be put off of it.
i chose to protect the society because if you only punish the criminal, then the society may not feel like they have been treated seriously due to the police having a lack of care or protection. If the criminal does not learn their lesson by being punished, then it is a waste of the polices time. Ben kinsella did nothing wrong and he was effected by gang violence.
I have chosen protection because when a sad avent like knife crime happens people should be protected from it because if they are not injuries happen.
i chose reformation because people should learn from their mistakes. Imagine if you were the criminal and you were caught, you would want a second chance to change and be forgiven. this choice is better rather than being punished.
i think we should change the criminals behaviour because if someone hurts you then you mustn't hurt them back because everyone deserves a second chance and it could decrease the amount of violent crimes to 0%
i chose D because if we punish criminals it will make people change their mind on committing them because they will see what is happening to them and will not want that to happen to them.
i picked d because prisons prevent criminals from harming anyone else in society.
For example, in 2008, Ben Kinsella was celebrating finishing his GCSE examinations. After exiting a bar, 3 criminals that had recently finished their sentences, stabbed and killed the 16 year old- completely unprovoked.
Shortly after his death they were arrested. By being arrested the rest of society was saved from their wrath.
I think they should punish crimes to protect the environment and give them another chance to change their ways.
I picked E because like the example if they don’t get punished they would do it again and think it’s ok .also if we don’t do it there will be more crimes commited because no one will suffer the connciquces for there actions.
I think all crimes should stop because it is unacceptable and hurts the public and it spreads around the world
I think D because society if people go out they might want to go somewhere but if
criminals aren’t being punished many people could be murderd more often and this is not good.
You need more evidence that criminals aren’t being punished properly because you won’t get a star for that. Also you don’t need a huge gap as you are writing a sentence. Maybe you could put things like: the criminals are not getting punished properly because they are getting away with things,or, the criminals are not getting punished properly because their are not enough police or there are to many other crimes needed to be sorted. (So that crimes being put aside)
And so all should be punished who did violence to other even if revenge
I chose D because we need to protect the innocent and punishing criminals is the only way to protect people. Also we need to make sure the world is safe from murderers drug dealers and gangs !
I thought B because you have to change the behaviour of that criminal or they are just going to get worse for sake if you were to give them payback they are going to want to do something worse than what you did to get payback.Than if we changed there behaviour they will want to be a lot nicer if they are educated and their behaviour changed.
I voted for B as I believe people who have critically injured someone should have another chance, but they should still be punished for it, and if they murdered someone, yes, they deserve to stay in prison, but I think it would definitely change their ways of how they react socially to other people around them.
I chose to pretect society from criminals because if we didn’t then basically everyone would copy and do crimes.
Option a because they have broken the law of the country and deserve to be punished.
I think B because the people in prison are just going to respond in a bad or violent way so if they respond in a bad way they will be but in prison more and more and will never learn from their mistakes.
I chose D because without protecting society from prisoners, more crime would occur.
For example, if a psychopath was in prison for mass murder then was let out, nonthing would have changed. But if they were a place to protect us from them or the other way round, then less violence would occur
I chose D as well, because I think that criminals just make mistakes, and if those mistake are dangerous or threatening then they can't REALLY be roaming around carrying on with their actions. No one would feel comfortable, I know I don't like it when I read of gangs in the newspaper. But imagine the police not arresting them because they WEREN'T dangerous in their opinion. These people, criminals, can do harm. They may not mean it, or have other reasons for it. But they are dangerous.
For example, if there was a criminal who left bombs in old cars, then you would expect him to be arrested and I know I would like to hear of him being in trouble. I mean, I wouldn't feel safe walking near cars AT ALL as there could be a risk one was in there. But imagine if the police and society thought...
We SHOULDN'T protect society from the criminal, we SHOULDN'T punish criminals for that reason.
We punish those who act against the law, if they have done something unacceptable. What hits the headlines, someone stole a packet of salt and vinegar crisps, or, a large gang of criminals carrying knives. So if the media is considering violence as MORE of a crime, then protecting people is the reason for society to punish those who do wrong.
Your comment is very informative and creative,you have earned and deserved your star.Keep up the good work to get more stars!
it was very good
I agree with you
I think A and B because the criminal needs to pay for what thy did and change their behaviour since crime is awful as it effects so many people in a bad way - not just the victim but the victim's family.
I picked B because they need to find the right way of life and find their good self. Everyone should have a second chance, even if they've done something really bad. They could then help others, like Sephton did.
I piked c because I felt like this is what the people deserve if they do wrong. This should depend on how 'wrong' has been done to the victim and how badly the victim was hurt or effected.
I chose D- to protect the society from the criminal. In the case of violent crime, for example gun crime, knife crime and murder, the criminal is often quite dangerous and in some cases might be tempted to commit the same crime again if given the chance to. I researched a variety of different areas of the UK to see if statistics matched my opinion. In one article I found online, I was shocked to see that more than a quarter of criminals prosecuted for knife crime offences had already been caught carrying a knife (this was the case in Shropshire but there were similar statistics in other regional newspapers). If these people had been punished in the first instance, they would be less tempted to do it again and knife crime might go down.
Also, if criminals were put in prison, they wouldn't have access to any weapons so even if they wanted to wouldn't be able to hurt anyone. It is important to ensure people are protected as much as possible from violence and crime, and the best way to do this is by punishing criminals the first time they do it.
I choose B because people in prison can learn different skills from their experience in the prisons programme for jobs and forget all their bad habits and run a business
I chose C because the criminal should be taught a lesson of payback
I have chosen D to protect the society because some times people that go to jail or prison some times they commit a crime again after they go in once . I chose D also because the crime can effect everyone not only the victim but the victims close friends and family .
In my opinion i feel like criminals who think that they are all big and hard just don't know what they are doing but really they go round with knifes staving people when it shouldn't happen because it is someone's life you are ruining and you are ruining your own
I absolutely hate it when people just get extremely racist against black people because they wear a head scarf and calling them a terrorist because that shouldn't happen britain isn't just for white people it is for us all to come together as one because we can't deal with the whole brexit thing as well as terrorism it is not a nice thing to deal with because all of these problems need to say away from is and our country and I hope that all of the problems in Syria and other countries like the bombs get sorted and resolved but it shouldn't happen
A very famous man said that we wasn't born to fit in we were born to stand out but that saying doesn't mean that we we re born to stand out but we shouldn't be able to stand out by doing the wrong things for example knife crime,rape,domestic abuse,violence,burgulary stuff like that shouldn't happen and we all need to come together to stop that because we don't want anyone to hurt or paralysed because trust me here you will regret everything u guys did when I were younger so please stay out of trouble
Thank you for reading this
i toataly agree with you
I agree because nobody in this world has no right to go around stabbing people no matter what has happened.There is so many kids who are dying because of people doing this disgusting action please if you see this crime please report it you may save somebody life
i agree with what you are saying and you have made a great point
well done
what would you do if your dad was doing crimes like murder?
but if they did what would you do
i would try to help that persons family and try to comfit them
help them move on with life
I chose D (protection) as I think of criminals as people harming the society, and I think it is vital that police officers (and others who are capeable of doing so) protect the people ESPECIALLY if that criminal is a murderer.
However, despite this, I also took a liking for A (retribution), because - although not many people voted for it - I find justice is very important, and I think this is a form of justice, but actually, now I'm looking back, this justice thing sort of relates to C (reparation), because payback is, I think, yet another form of justice.
I chose C because to give the victim payback for doing what was wrong to a teenager or a young adult and even sometimes children between ages 10-12 years of age! I knew straight away that my opinion was C because my opinion wasn’t going to be A,B,or even D.
I chose option B because the main point of punishment is that it teaches a criminal a lesson which is supposed to change their behaviour and make them stop any type of wrong doing like violence, harassment, robbery, murder and more. Sometimes when criminals are released they change their behaviour due to the punishment they have received so these are the reasons I have chose this option.
I think they should have 2 guards in a cell area or even 4
Crime varies and it depends how severe that crime is.
There are petty crimes such as stealing small amounts of money, shoplifting or a physical fight for small arguments, which the law, instead of putting them in prison, punish them with a fine (financial punishment) -they have to do this financial punishment otherwise all the prisons will become overcrowded.
In addition, there are very serious crimes, which may lead to someone being murdered. For these crimes, depending on the strength of that crime, the law will send them to prison.
However, sometimes crime can happen without the person’s concern, eg. A mentally or disabled person, a minor person (child) in the community or a person who is drunk who has an influence of drugs and alcohol. For these crimes, the law punishes the person as a human rights ground.
In my opinion, according to the strength and the nature of the crime, all the A, B, C, D, and E are correct when punishing for a crime.
Lets consider option A: If someone do a crime involving damaging to another person’s property, home or vehicle, then the law will make those criminals pay back with a heavy fine (financial debt) to the court, making them pay back what they have done.
If we consider option B: If someone does a crime when they have an influence on a drug, mental or violent, then law will punish them to change their behaviour of the drugs, addiction and the violent behaviour.
If we consider option C: If someone does fraud and does a financial crime to another person or an organisation, then the law will make those criminals pay back with a heavy fine to the court, making them pay back all the money they have stolen.
If we consider option D: If someone does a crime that involves violent actions or behaviour to another person (terrorism related, crime against women or children) then, the law will lock them up permanently or until the person is rehabilitated in the prisons to protect the society.
If we consider option E: If someone does a crime the first time then, the law will give him a small punishment and the law will also say that if that person does the crime again, they will be put on a life imprisonment or death penalty which will make them scared. This will make them not commit the crime again.
In my opinion, for major crimes, all A, B, C, D and E options can apply while they serve in prison.
Also, in my opinion, overall, option B: to change the criminal’s behaviour is how the law should punish criminals such as rehabilitating them in a good way to help the society rather than condemning them as a criminal. I believe this because educating criminals and teaching them new skills will make them feel like they are the important in society so they will not do any criminal activities.
I chose B because it could make the criminal change their ways and become good and trustworthy
For those of you who picked A and C read this:
What if the criminal gets really angry and specifically target you instead of anyone else since you wanted payback.
I thinks it better to respect others opinions
I think knife crime because if there were no punishments then somebody could go outside and kill somebody with a knife and carry on walking down the streets and killing people or going back home to wait for the next day to do it again
I can't see the poll it's not working on my laptop.
Try holding down shift and then refreshing the page.
I think B because once a criminal has done wrong they get caught and punished to change from their bad ways to very good ways but this is a gradual process because you can' t just change from bad to good it is not possible so that is why I call it a gradual process.
I vote for E because if no one was punished for committing crimes then everyone would think it’s okay to follow after those people who did commit one. For example, if you did something against the law and you were not punished for it you might think that you can take and steal as many things as you want because you don’t have to worry about being caught and punished for it.
I chose reformation as if we change the behaviour of the criminal, then they are less likely to do that. If we just protect them from society, then they may not think their actions are wrong and when they are freed back in society, they may go back to their former ways. However, if in a gang, the behaviour changing may be undone due to peer pressure in the gang,telling them to steal or kill. On the other hand, it is better than the other options as it teaches them the correct behaviour and morality.
I think B because then once they are let out after their sentence then they will hopefully be a changed person and won’t commit any more crime. For example, if someone has been sentenced to jail for about 5 years for murdering a child, then after that sentence then they would hopefully think, ‘I am not doing that again’. This means that they would’ve (hopefully) changed after a while in prison and wouldn’t do anything else illegal. It’s a good punishment because it means that they probably aren’t going to do it again and society isn’t going too far by killing the criminal. This would then also protect society because there won’t be as many people trying to murder innocents.
I think that people who commit crimes should be punished because they even do it for some reasons like Revenge anger and sometimes it's not even to the person who had done anything to them. They should learn that crime or anger issues is never an answer to resolving problems between people.
Firstly, I believe that all these points may somehow punish criminals. Retribution may be used when (For example) a family is in court because the criminal did something to one of their members and they would want the criminal to pay for what they have done. Secondly, reformation may change the criminal’s behaviour however not all criminals will be different people once they come out of prison, so the criminal in prison may have a bad influence (by the other criminals.). Reparation may put the victim at ease however it will not solve the problem. Protecting society from the criminal may be an effective method as more people would not be introduced to crime. Lastly, putting people off crime would also be an effective method as less people would be breaking the law and suffering serious consequences. However, I mostly agree with statement D), society should punish criminals to protect society from them. If everyone is protected, then the criminal may change inside of prison in order to become a better person (Critics argue that, a short-term imprisonment may inspire them to avoid committing a crime.) Furthermore, if the criminal in question is kept inside a prison then they will therefore pay for what they have done. In addition, if society is protected from the criminal, it will encourage them to abide by the law. So, by protecting the society from the criminals we would be able to perform the other points. Statistics show that, imprisonment is effective in benefiting society as by the time the criminals are released, they are less-likely to commit a crime as they are of older age. Overall, I agree with statement d) as it could help to execute the other statements.
I choose B ,to change the criminal's behaviour, because criminals has ways that society doesn't agree with so they will repeat the same bad deeds. Reforming the criminal will be educating , teaching the mind to choose the right decision and then teach other gang members to think they him or change a a few things at least. For example, Septon he got arrested 7 times before the age of 23 but the seventh time he choose to educate himself to learn the right path or direction in life
I chose "Reformation" due to everyone deserves a chance to change around and if we try we can show to them what they are doing and try to help them
I think that knife crime is bad because it is not needed and there is always another solution for everything
but the question is do we help the person that has done the knife crime or the people that have been affected by the crime. I think we should help the people that have done the crime and find out the reason they did it and see if we can prevent other people from doing it.
I agree with this statement and I believe that B is the best option because it would make criminals change their way
I agree with this person because it would definitely change peoples ways of life.
I do agree with B because it will make the criminals might make them change their ways
I agree very much
i think we should always help the person who did the crime
i agree with you so much
I think the consequences for crime should depend on how violent The crime is or how many victims there are. nife crime should have a sentence in crime for how many people it affected:1 person 2people3people and so on. and trespassing should just be let of with a warning as they haven't done any physical contact whereas attempedmu8rderfd should have a 6 month sentence to prisons they tried to kill someone but they did not get murdered crime should always have a consequence as some one in someway is being affected may not be anything physical but other things.
I think ‘b’ because if you change their behaviour then they will know not to do the wrong thing again.
I choose C because giving the victim pay back would teach them a lesson and also other people would not want to get the punishment when they hear about it.That is equivalent to less people committing crime.
I choose A as if the criminal killed someone don’t you think they should feel remorse for their actions?Or should they be let out and feel nothing,maybe doing it again.If they went to prison with just bread,water and boredom I surely wouldn’t do it again.
I chose D because we don’t want others to get hurt because of the gang or criminals,we want everyone to be safe,not everyone to feel unsafe.We might already not feel safe but at least we don’t want many people to die because of the same reason!Yes,we don’t know who exactly is a criminal but itsnot like you’re going to be stabbed in the back the very second you walk out the door but let’s think of it not everyone is a criminal,yeah,we have one or two in our family but they might have done because they are threatened to do it or they did it because they need food or money.Getting on to the question we should give them a 5,6,7,8,9 or 10 year sentence to prison.
The crimes is very bad and children shouldn’t do it because it dangerous and someone mite hart a child or a person in their family. And the police will have to a raster the person who is doing a crime and they will kill someone.
I will choose c because if was a parent who lost their child I would want revenge. I would also want to make the criminal pay by feeling guilty. So by going to prison.
All: A,B,C,D and E are and e are fair and even possibilities of what might happen to the criminals. But how come not all criminals are caught? Because many people get away with it and since this is happening, more people think that they can get away with crime!
People should be punished straight away because they will not care well some people will .like in school you same thing.
i chose A because the criminal can shoot or kill more people without facing the consequences
I choose B this is because I think this is the most sensible idea. Reasons why I think this: if a criminal changes their behaviour, this is benefiting for the public and themselves. They are benefitting the public as it would be a much safer place because they are not committing the crimes anymore. They are benefiting for themselves as they won’t risk getting into trouble and they can make a change to their life.
I chose option B. The reason for this decision is because, judging by their unnecessary actions, there is no need for serious consequences. In addition, I believe that no matter how bad the situation was, everyone deserves a second chance (depending on the circumstances).
In my opinion choosing to be kind is the best way to resolve any dilemma, even when it involves violent crimes.
Let's take a glance at option A: If we make the criminal pay for their actions then they will simply repeat the same routine, which is harming others.
If we contemplate option B: If we change the criminals behaviour (reformation) then we would consider them as a good person, meaning we see that they have good morals and bad morals. This is called contrasting. This means when someone or something describes something as good, but in a bad way. e.g. Smooth bashed-in head
If we contemplate option C: If a criminal harms or damages something financially then, it will be decided in court on the amount the criminal will have to pay. They will be paid a BIGGER fine for the damage.
If we contemplate option D: If we protect the society then the only good impact it has is keeping the country safe. Although this decision is wise, it will still encourage the criminal to try harder to hurt us.
If we contemplate option E: If someone commits a crime then the law will enforce them with a small punishment. If it occurs a second time then they will either be sentenced to prison or, if the crime was that bad then possibly death! This will then be set as a warning to not perform such dangerous risks.
Overall, in my opinion, after analysing all the options, I think it's best if we reform them. Instead of them killing us, we can kill them with kindness :)
i fairly disagree because you can not change a person into being someone they are not.
I chose option E because if there was no punishment for crimes then crimes would be committed more than before. For example, for something as simple as speeding, if there was not a fine for speeding, then most people would do it; however, if there is a fine less people commit the crime because they cannot afford to pay the fine. Also, although I am not saying it is right by any means at all, since the death penalty has been removed from punishment crime the rate of murders has almost doubled - statistics say. This is because the murderers know they will only go to jail and ,if they behave, their sentence can be halved. Also, since ,as I previously said, villains can have their jail time reduced if they behave in prison. This means that people commit crimes, behave in prison, have their time reduced and do the same thing.
Therefore, I believe punishment is used as a deterrence for crime.
Information found at https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-was-abolished/
I think it depends on what they have done so if somebody robs the bank and somebody else stabes someone else . stabing someone would be more bad than robing the bank .
I think all crimes are bad but most of all kidnapping children,hurting them,knife crime and murdering is the worst because many people all over the world are getting hurt. You can forgive some minor crimes such as using your neighbours Wifi,stealing your teachers pen from school and more because those aren't as dangerous and scary to people, they are still crimes but just not as bad, you can forgive them but you can't forgive really serious ones.
I agree with you because something like using your neighbours Wifi,stealing your teachers pen from school isn't as bad as kidnapping anyone and knife crime is extremely wrong and as a result of knife crime they should they should spend a long period of time in jail and they can think of the crime they've committed and not repeat it again and the number of crime MIGHT/COULD reduce.
Anyway...good point!!!
I think that all of these are equally important but if I had to chose one I would choose D. For an example:
In London, a very busy city with many people, there is a murderer on the lose, no one has captured them, they have killed 14 people in the last month all in different areas of London. It is on the news all the time and everyone is scared they are going to be next as he could be anywhere. On victim was killed at work, one at a supermarket and one at a school. After hearing this people are scared to go to work, go food shopping and kids are frightened to go to school. Now no one is making money and everyone is hiding in their houses. The teachers don’t go to work meaning the children ( ones who are brave enough to go to school) can’t get educated. This causes chaos, people don’t want to go outside for too long to they go to closest supermarkets and break in to these places and then steal food. It would be madness.
This is why I think D is the most important and people should be punished for it. But all of the options kind of tie into each other because if someone’s child died from the murderer they would want revenge.
I choose B-Reformation - to change the criminal’s behaviour. although the other options are still good use of punishment depending on the severity of the crime.
However, about 46% of prisoners and 60% of those on short sentences re-offend within a year of release (fullfacts.org). And in my opinions I feel that this figure should be a lot lower, so this is why I feel prisons should do more to reform the criminals behaviour through rehabilitation. I feel the process would help them to reflect the seriousness of their crime and shape them into a better person when they re-enter society.
Most criminals may have mental issues, or were raised in an unhealthy environment or simply just feel they never had any other options other than a life of crime. Nevertheless the statistics do show when people are punished, they often learn nothing and they may even feel more revengeful and be more aggressive. So tackling the root cause, I feel, is a better solution.
Connect Network suggest ‘5 Rewarding Types of Rehabilitation for Inmates’ which I think the Uk prison could find beneficial, these include -
1 Education - Offenders come out better educated than when they enter, huge benefit to society and for their own prospects.
2 Employment - to help offenders seek and maintain employment and thereby reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
3 Counselling - Give support to all aspect of their life from personal, social academic and vocational
4 Wellness - Focus on all physical health and mental wellbeing for a positive mental attitude.
5 Communication - A support system that helps inmates to be part of a wider community when they are released.
Now of course, if something terrible happened to me or my loved ones I would want revenge; thats a natural human emotion. However, considering most offenders would be released from prison at some point, it is much better whilst they are serving time, get an education to improve their prospects and help them with any mental and behaviour issues. This way they will come out better than when they went in, rather than cause more harm to society. The streets would be safer and everyone wins. The individuals will pay their debt to society by getting a job, pay their taxes and maybe even help others from going down a life of crime. The money spent on rehabilitation is far better than the government repeatedly having to pay to keep them locked up.
https://fullfact.org/crime/reoffending-short-sentences/
https://web.connectnetwork.com/rehabilitation-for-inmates/
Well it depends on the type of crime someone commited to and how bad it was so they should get the correct punishment.In my opinion i think option b because changing someones behavior is a hard thing to do and punishments help alot.Once someone has had the correct punishment they might know how it feels to be hurt so they could change what they do in therw lifes.
I also think option a because whatever the person has done they have to pay for it.If someone didnt pay for what they did it would make them feel hurt because its not the right thing to do.
I think option c,d and e are not why people get punished(in my opinion)because for option c the victum doesnt need payback because they havent done anything.Also the victum is the person who got hurt on murdered so how could they of done anything.I think option d is not the reason why the goverment punish people because the society are the people punishing the criminal and protecting the victim(i think)Thwe sociotey should also protect themselfs but should focus more on the victum because the crimanal could do anything to them.I tink e is sort of an answer but not at the same time because going to prison or having a tracker machine attached to you or cleaning up litter for free and not getting paid for it they are some punishments people have to do when they commit crime.I think it is not an answer because when people have completed there punishments sometimes people just do it again because they dont care or just dont listen.The reason i think it is an answer because when they have completed there punishments they know what it feels like and because they didnt like what they had to do they didnt want to do it again so they would have been good so they dont get another punishment.
This is just my opinion and this is all i think everyones opinion is different and we can argue against it or agree with it.
I chose A because it is more important that the criminal gets punished for what they have done. They can't get away with it because that could cause them to strike again. If they were not punished, how can we trust that they don't just say that they didn't get caught so they will do it again. It is important that they get punished.
(B) Along the way, going to prison would teach them a lesson and possibly change their behaviour but really they just need to be punished. It is all up to them to decide whether or not they want to change. Putting the criminal in prison could just make them angrier and seeking revenge on whoever called the police or got them in prison. So it isn't about them changing.
(C) It wouldn't be to get the victim payback because there might not even be a victim. There can be a crime with out a victim. And what would putting them in prison do for the victim. They would only be let out a couple of years later so it wouldn't really be pay back. Getting payback is really not the main reason a criminal would be kept in prison.
(D) It would be to project the society but that isn't why they go to jail. They go to jail to be punished for what they've done. It would be protecting society why they are getting punished therefore it is true. Protecting society wouldn't be why they go to prison but it is linked.
(E) Going to prison wouldn't really put people off crime because sometimes they are proud of what they have done so they wouldn't actually care about prison. It could put people off though.
A is the right reason to me because A would mean justice is being served.
I chose E because if you punish one person others will know the consequences.
They may also not do it again and may influence others to not do it; just like Sephton's story.
I chose C . Here’s a story. Let’s say someone committed a knife crime and then a police officer came then they got put in jail that pay back or what some people call ‘instant karma’
Crime is bad for the whole world, that’s why we need people like :police,government and safety officers to send murderers and robbers to jail for what they have made for a crime.
I picked B(to change criminal behaviour)because more police officers are dropping a lot so we definitely have to do something or there is going to be more violent crime happening.Also criminals when they come out of prison could do more crimes or they have learnt there lesson in prison and never do it again.
I picked B because you would want to reduce the number of criminals by changing their views on crime, preferably before they come out of prison. If their behaviour is not changed early enough it will result in an increase in the level of crime,which can only be negative.
I chose D because I think if people are not protected by the society then people will be persuaded to do more bad things.Bad people should be sent to jail to keep the world safe and less people in danger.Protecting the world is more important than letting them get away with it.The crimes that have been made over the last few months and years have not been having consequences for. That is my opinion,tell me if you have a different one!
I picked protection because not all of the options work for example:
Retribution- Not all criminals are caught after they have committed a crime.
Reformation- Not all criminals are charged with the right amount of years in prison. E.g Murderers get more years in prison than a rapist.
Reparation- For example if a murder happens then that's something you cant take back; you cant take a life back.
Deterrence- Not all criminals are scared to commit another crime, but other criminals are scared to the point where they get put off of killing; like people get put off food.
I think the main reason is that if the victim had no choice or had done nothing to deserve that. Or if the person who commited the crime did it for there own good and they had the choice so they were doing it out of selfishness or out of hate
I chose Reformation (B) because I think that if we reform people and teach them not to commit crimes, they will not do crimes and so will influence other people not to do crimes.
I chose reformation (B), because deterring people (E) wouldn't be enough to prevent crime from happening,
some people just wouldn't care, if they had a motivation behind the crime.
Protecting people (D), wouldn't really make a difference because you couldn't identify the killer until they had killed someone.
E) To put people off committing crime (deterrence)
I think that people get punished because of this reason, because one way of punishment that fits into deterrence is being sentenced to prison; this stops that one person from committing a crime for a certain amount of time.Also in medieval times people would have done punishments in public and therefor hope to stop crime. However, being sent to prison cannot stop a whole country. Some time ago there was a death penalty for certain crimes, but it is now illegal to give people death penalties since 2004.
D) To protect society from the criminal (protection)
People could get punished for this reason because, if a criminal has killed one person we don't want them going around killing loads of other people. Prison is also a punishment of protection as well as tagging.
These are the two reasons that stood out to me but overall I believe that E is the real reason why criminals get punished for their crimes.
As I was saying I chose c because even if we punish them the robber/burglar might go at it again and get away with it
I chose d because I believe that people need to be protected from dangers in society. For example drunk drivers. People need to be protected from them because they cause hazards and can eventually kill people. If they are locked away then the hazard can be put to a stop, but if they are still out in the open then more people can be harmed.
I choose B because a criminal must learn from their actions, and they can find a peaceful solution for the reason why they are committing crimes. E.g a 17 year old boy had committed a crime because he felt lonely at school.
I think the answer is B and D because...
I believe that with help and time to reflect any criminal can turn their life around after getting out of prison. They can learn not to steal but to give because giving back or just giving something away is a great opportunity to show how much you have changed.I also believe that D is correct because if a criminal is locked up then much less harm can come to a city. Another reason is that really bad people being locked away gives freedom, light and safety to the town, city or even country!
By the way I think both B and D are the main ones,
hope you liked my comment
I think that c is incorrect because your not giving them payback, you are giving them a chance to reflect, think and learn about how what they were doing was hurting a lot people and not only physically at that!!
i agree with you so much
i agree with you
same
I have chosen to make the criminal pay for what they done because the amount of time someone dose is dependent on the crime they've done.
Personally, I believe that people should be punished for their actions because this gives a good incentive to refrain from doing the action again. However, this does not include life sentences in prison because the person does not get out. Hence they will not be able to do the action again anyway.
Personally, I believe that statement B is the most accurate reason of punishing and imprisoning these criminals. It could show the criminals that consequences will come and hopefully it could lead them to not want a repeat of the imprisonment and lead them to change their ways and see and help lead the world to be a better place.
Other people could argue that, it may just encourage them to continue their criminal acts just been more hidden and decrease the chances of getting caught; however, I believe that no matter how hard they try to not get caught there will always be a fault in the system and they will eventually get caught. I would like to help that after being caught they'd strive to change their bad ways and become an overall better person.
I chose option C: Reparation. I think that all of the statements are important in their own way. However, I think that to give the victim of the crime justice for what has happened to them is very important. If someone was murdered, for example, the victim would want their killer to be behind bars, because then it's only fair to them for that to happen. Justice is on of the main reasons why we have peace, because people want our law and country to be fair to that person. Another example of wanting payback or justice is if a child is kidnapped. People say that one of the greatest joy in life is having a child, so what if your child got taken away from you? An example of this is Madeleine McCann. Maddie McCann was kidnapped when she was just 4 years old whilst her family was on holiday in Portugal. She has never been heard of or seen since. This is one of the most famous kidnap cases in history. Wouldn't her parents want their daughter to be found? For the person responsible for their heartbreak to be in prison? This is why I think that Option C is the most important reason for punishing criminals.
I think that we should have reparation because if someone is stolen from they have to give it back but there is no fine.
Personally, I think that B (reformation) would be the best way to punish someone for a crime. This is because by changing the criminals behaviour, it can not only change their choice of actions, but it can also change the criminals way of thinking. This can mean that the criminal can not only stop committing that crime, but it can stop them from committing any of the other crime types.
My reason for picking ‘B’ and not any of the other choices, is because:
‘A’ (Retribution) - Even if the criminal is made to pay for their actions, there is nothing to stop them from committing the crime again.
‘C’ (Reparation) - If the criminal is decided to have payback brought upon them, then the person giving them the payback is just doing the wrong action themselves, so they are just as bad as the criminal.
‘D’ (Protection) - Even if the society is protected from that criminal, only that one society is protected. There is nothing to stop the criminal from moving to a different country/area and commit the crime again only in a different environment.
‘E’ (Deterrence) - Even if the criminal gets put off committing that crime, there is nothing to say that the criminal will not commit a different type of crime.
I believe that option 2 (Reformation) is the most beneficial as it benefits many people on different level. First, the criminal benefits with the fact that they are going to leave a changed person which, obviously will benefit them greatly. Secondly, every is protected from further crimes they commit. Finally, those supporting people in prison will benefit from pay and employment.
I truly believe that C is the best option for the question "Why should society punish criminals?"
This is due to having payback for the crime that has been committed.
If you were harmed in any way like an assault and you had to go to hospital, you would want someone to pay as much time in prison as you wasted in hospital.
Or say a family member or friend was murdered you would want justice for your friend/family member.
Unfortunately , this could backfire considering the amount of evidence provided to prosecute the criminal. This could influence the amount of jail time or the punishment in general.
I agree with u
l chose E because if someone commits murder, and they are punished for it sufficiently and it is publicly broadcasted, then it will make people who want to commit murder or those who are thinking of committing it think twice. This is because when we do something wrong, we don't always think about how bad the consequences will be until they actually happen. If we see the consequences before we do something wrong, our conscience will catch up with us quicker which can make us less likely to do it. This means that crime will be reduced. I do think that somes crimes should have harsher punishments in order for E to really be effective.
I chose option E - deterrence. This method of taming society and preventing young boys from partaking in improper conduct has been popular for millennia, even ancient societies (such as the Egyptians and Romans) are known for public executions. However cases such as these may indeed be more recent than you think, the most recent hangings in Britain occurred in 1964 and were eventually banned in 1965 on account of murder. This method of deterrence was of course very effective however it is indeed debatable about whether prison sentences are now as effective.
I strongly believe that society ought to understand the severity of their actions, this method isn't necessarily subject to crime. In 1834 workhouses were founded, the purpose of these workhouses were to house paupers however they also served another purpose. The conditions of the workhouses were truly horrific - some people literally lived on the stairs; everybody feared being so poor as to live in the workhouse, and this was intentional since the government wanted people to end their laziness.
It is through methods such as these that we can shape and mold our reckless society which is why I maintain that deterrence is the most important reason for punishing criminals.
I chose B (to change the criminal’s behaviour).
Most people, though not all turn to crime as a result of their situation. For many, especially in highly-populated areas like London, they are born into a life of crime for multiple reasons. Firstly, they might be born into a family that is already full of criminal activities. Although you are not a criminal when you are first born, your upbringing decides what adult you will be like. For many, they have been brought up in these criminal ways, taught that this is OK, maybe they even think they are doing nothing wrong. Also, many people turn to crime because they genuinely have no other option, they are homeless and they can’t get a job or they are getting such little money they are forced into criminal activities like buying and selling drugs, just so they and their family don’t slowly die of starvation.
It is very easy to judge these people, in the privileged position that a lot of us are in, it is very easy to judge these criminals and reoffenders as just ‘bad’ people but if you had no other option or you simply knew no better how sure are you that you wouldn’t turn to crime? We seem to be blaming criminals, not helping them. Putting them in prison doesn’t help them, they are just punished and sent back out into the world no better off, they are being set up, and not being helped out of, inevitable failure, with them bound to have another run in with the law sooner or later.
Rather than punishing people for breaking the law we need to be solving the problems that are forcing them into it. We need to be sorting crime out at the source or it is just going to happen over and over again. For instance, for youths in underprivileged areas, we need more youth clubs and education about the negatives of drugs and carrying knives, and help them to become well rounded human beings, and hopefully educating them so they can one day get a job and provide for themselves in a way that doesn’t harm society.
But what about people who have already offended, people whose crimes have already had an impact?
I think that rather than looking at all these people as criminals, the justice and prison system needs to look at everyone’s individual situation and give them help towards it. If they are struggling to get a job, help them create a cv or help them to source work. If they are unable to escape a gang as they are scared for their life if they quit, give them the protection to leave without harm. Also, I think we should be educating criminals so they learn why what they are doing is harmful, why they shouldn’t do it, what harm it actually causes people, so they don’t just feel like laws are meaningless and educate them generally too, help them into education so they can get a job, earn a living etc. If they have mental health issues or drug addiction, try help them with that.
My main point is that we should be giving these people every possible opportunity to turn their back to crime, get them back on the straight and narrow, rehabilitating them, teaching them right from wrong and sorting these problems out at the core, not just having to deal with the aftermath.
However, I do accept that this is not always going to work. Some people will never change and some problems and ways of life are so serious or so deeply embedded into someone’s brain, they cannot be helped out of a situation, maybe, possibly they won’t listen and maybe they are just turning to crime because they are genuinely ‘bad’ people who have no emotions or empathy for others and only think for themselves. Also, maybe someone has done something so terrible and unforgivable, like murdering many people brutally, which has deeply affected so many, so badly and is not reversible, then I agree, they should be locked up for a long time, especially if they don’t show any remorse. In these cases, the victim does need to be punished for what he has done, and the public needs protecting from this person, and people do need to see the tough consequences so they don’t commit a similar crime.
So in conclusion, retribution, reparation, protection and deterrence are all important and necessary and fair reasons but should only be used after all attempts have been made to help and reform the person, as not everyone deserves to be punished or shamed. By helping people out of these habits, they are far less likely to offend again, they are less likely to commit a crime again as they have no need or want to, this is why reformation is the best way.
I chose B because an endless cycle of retribution and crime does nothing to lower crime rates. The anger people feel when imprisoned only serves to isolate them from society and therefore make them likely to fall back into their old patterns and re-offend. Reformation style punishments such as community service and education programs are far more effective, because they make people think of the consequences of the crimes they've committed, while also creating a chance for them to give back to their community.
I am curious as to why you believe 'an endless cycle of retribution and crime does nothing to lower crime rates.' How do you actually know this?
I chose reformation (to try and change the behaviour of said criminal) although I don't think prison is the best option for criminals especially those who have been in gangs, I think the whole idea of prison is to either change behaviour of criminals or to at least put them off committing crime.
I chose B because it stops offenders from repeating the crime. The problem with all the other options is once the criminal is free they would just go and commit another crime. However, the justice system does not think the same way. It believes that jail is retribution (A) as that is why worse crimes sentence you to longer in jail.
Note/ There is a typo in the poll
I chose D because crime is not a laughing matter and some people's lives have been negatively impacted due to the atrocities that criminals have committed against them. Because of that, I think it is important to prevent people from being victims. A strong piece of evidence for this point is that the main reason that criminals are imprisoned is to separate them from their victims so it is impossible for them to interact with them. This also leads to another main reason which is to keep people safe and my other reason links onto that. Think about why some people are prisoned for a lifetime; it is to isolate those people from the rest of the world for as long as they live because they are a huge threat to the rest of mankind.
I chose D, but I also could understand and feel strongly about B. If you B punish them to change the criminal's behavior, and they are no longer a criminal, then prison has had the affect that society punish them for, to help make the criminal a better person and if they are dangerous, they are kept apart until they are no longer. We don't punish them to be mean, really it's for their own good, and the safety of everyone else. D and B sort of go together, i think they are the main two FAIR reasons people should and are sent to jail. We don't really think about why someone would go to jail, now someone is either guilty or not and they are immediately sent to prison. But in some ways, locking someone up in a warm, dry bed is better than being stuck in a gang. So back to 'for your own good' I think B and D are the main two reasons criminals should be punished.
I agree with you because they will change but then it is not always the case about that
Personally I think several different reasons. But overall I think that it depends on the situation. For example let’s say that somebody has knocked somebody innocent out on the street then surely they should be punished but why?
A, for starters to make the criminal pay for what they have done. Well in fact it is actually our taxes that pay for there food and accomodation in jail so actually it is us paying. But they could be very unhappy in life and wants to be in prison and therefore is still not paying for what they have done. That is why i think that that is not why society punish people.
B, To change the criminals behavior. Well actually that is not always the case in fact some people might like it in jail and then not be scared about going back there and then they would not be changing the criminals behavior. But this is not always the case and sometimes it might change the criminals behavior. But it might be that society punish people but this is not personally why I would punish someone.
C, To give the victim payback. Let’s say that somebody had killed another person, then you could not give them payback because you are not allowed to kill anybody even if they have done that. And for that reason I do not agree with that statement and the same goes for lower level crimes like punching, the same theory applies that you are not allowed to punch them but you can put them in jail. I do not think that is why personally or in society that that is why we punish people.
D, To protect society from the criminal. I agree with this statement because for example if somebody was robbing cars if they were punished and put in jail then it would protect society from being robbed. I think is also why society punish people.
E, To put people off commiting crime. I also agree with this statement because if others around you see what can happen then it would put them off. But this theory can also work against itself because if a person did not get punished that much for a crime then others would not feel so scared to do so. So i think that if they are put off from doing a crime then this is also why society would choose this.
Overall I think that it is different amounts of all of these things that is why society punnish criminals but I think that D is the main one.
I pick B because if you punish somebody and they change their behaviour the victim might know how to help stop a lot of crime from happening. This could lead to a decrease of the amount of crime in the area or even worldwide. The criminal that was punished might start helping criminals that he/she knew making them stop the crime that they do.
I choose D because if the society s protected from criminals it means that the amount of deaths will decrease.
I choose B because if you change the way a criminal thinks that could lead to them being good and helping people more people. if they just get punished they would probably still want to do crimes so its better to change their thinking and the way they act.
I think E because if we stop people committing crime then everyone would be happy. First of all, the person who had been arrested or jailed could stop committing crime they would not go jail and be happy. Secondly, the people f the country would be safe and not fear violent crime and be happy,
I choose B because if you change the way a criminal thinks that could lead to them being good and helping people. If they just get punished they would probably still want to do crimes so it's better to change their thinking and the way they act.
I chose B because if they punish someone for doing something bad then it will change the way they think. For example the video we saw in class showed that there was a man who committed lots of crimes and he went to jail and he had a mentor who helped him there and he changed the way he acted. He went out helping people in life.
I picked A because if you cermite a crime you should pay for what you have done.Like a knife crime you should go to jail for at least 3 years i pearsonaly say so going to jail is paying for what you have done
i agree with you because people could die
your right people can die
To protect society from the criminal because that criminal can kill society without protection.
I choose D because if criminals get punished for the crime if the criminal is in a gang the gang might take their anger out on other people. I am not saying that they shouldn't be punished for the crime because there needs to be some sort of consequence.
I would choose D because although it may be to change criminals behaviour or to put them off committing crime, it is obvious that by stopping crimes in different ways, you are protecting people. This is because there will be a victim of some kind in crimes which means there is a high chance of some one getting effected by this. So by stopping crimes , the police would be protecting public or maybe even the criminals. It has proven recalled by the encyclopedia that other costs to victims can include medical costs, property losses, and loss of income.
I choose B because , thinking to our ordinary lives , if there was a trip to a skate park in school and you misbehaved for the whole week before the trip you would probably be told that you where not allowed to go -as a punishment .
The punishment is to discourage you to behave like that again , not to ne cruel . In the same way if you carry a knife you will go to prison . So if you ever get another chance to go on a school trip you will know that you shoul d behave to be able to go .
Also , being free to walk in the road and in public is a privilege as well as a right if you carry a knife you will not be able to be in public for a certain amount of time .
In the same way if you do not complete your homework you will be asked to do it in your playtime - own time - , even though playing is your right somtimes it may have to think of it as a privilege when you do not do what is essential.
I chose D because crime in a society or a community affects everyone if a knife crime has been committed
is to put the people who do crimes is to put them in jail and fine them
yes I agree too
to put them in jail and fine them
it depends what they do
in my opinion i think criminals should be punished because they need to reflect on there actions because thrt have dont a bad crime such as rape,assault,robbery,arson,theftand joyriding
I think criminals should be punished because they are putting themselves and others in danger.They can do some very bad things like:rape,domestic violence,theft,joyriding ect. They can get in alot of trouble or even can get killed so i think if they get a long enough sentence the will thing about there actions and how much danger they are. One thing that really annoys me is when people shout black people are terrorists or take the mick out of women who were headscarf,everyone should be treated equal and with respect.
Thank You
people shouldn't stab people it is not right.
I chose reformation because I believe it is important that criminals' mindsets are changed. It makes sense that criminals understand why they have been put into prison and why they shouldn't have committed a crime in the first place.
would you still tell someone?
no mater what
I agree with all of the answers, however I more so agree with E, deterrence. My assumption is that most people are afraid, and this is most likely due to things like crime shows and documentaries that show, as well as the crime, the punishment that comes afterwards. This doubtlessly depends on how the show is presented though, so this opinion can be debated.
i agree with you
make them pay $100 evrry month
why should they pay £100 ?
put them in jail and get them to pay a lot of money
I chose deterrence because this way everybody will stop committing crimes, there will be no need for protection, and then the world will be a better and happier place.
police arnt doing nothing about it
in my opinion i think that criminals should be punished because they should not have the right to hurt others and get away with it.
its not fair
people getting involved
i chose E because why should people lose their lives to a crime especially to arson, murder, robbery, slavery and other crimes
I choose a . The reason i choose a is because once violent criminals go through their punishment they will understand that its not worth going through that pain and people who are considering violence will understand what the punishment is.
why would you want them to PAY for the crime they did
i agree with any one
I think that the main reason to put people in prison is B in most cases but in some D. I think that if somebody commits a crime which is serious but not hugely serious, such as harming someone, burglary or theft, they should be sent to prison to change their character (reformation). I think that if people are in prisons, instead of being made to work, they should be helped mentally (eg. receiving educational support an therapy), to help change their character to stop them from committing crimes again. If all people who broke the law and were put in prison were supported and helped to not break the law again, then this country would have many less criminals. If they were not put in prison just to punish them, but to stop them from committing crimes again, the level of crime would drastically decrease. However, if it was someone like a serial killer, I believe that they should be kept in prison to keep the public safe. This is because they are incredibly dangerous and are a huge threat to the public. Although I think that even the people who commit the worst crimes can be reformed, it is also very important to protect the innocent from people who may put them in grave danger, so I believe it is better to keep them safe from the public than taking the gamble that they have reformed and releasing them.