Crime Archives — Gp Lah!

The only way to deal with a criminal is to remove him from society. Discuss.

While removing criminals from society can protect the public and deter crime, rehabilitation and restorative justice offer alternative solutions that address underlying issues and promote reintegration.

I. Introduction

Hook: Crime remains a significant challenge for societies worldwide.
Background: Overview of traditional and alternative approaches to dealing with criminals.
Thesis Statement: While removing criminals from society can protect the public and deter crime, rehabilitation and restorative justice offer alternative solutions that address underlying issues and promote reintegration.

II. Supporting View 1: Public Safety

Topic Sentence: Removing criminals ensures public safety by preventing further harm.
Example 1: In 2020, the UK increased sentences for serious offenders to protect citizens.
Example 2: In 2019, Italy’s anti-mafia operations removed dangerous criminals from society.
Example 3: In 2021, Australia implemented strict measures to detain violent offenders.
Analysis: These examples demonstrate how removing criminals enhances public safety.

III. Supporting View 2: Deterrence

Topic Sentence: Harsh penalties serve as a deterrent to potential criminals.
Example 1: In 2018, Singapore’s strict drug laws deterred drug trafficking.
Example 2: In 2019, Saudi Arabia’s severe penalties for theft reduced crime rates.
Example 3: In 2020, Japan’s tough stance on organised crime deterred criminal activities.
Analysis: These instances show that strict penalties can deter criminal behaviour.

IV. Supporting View 3: Retribution

Topic Sentence: Removing criminals serves as retribution, providing justice for victims.
Example 1: In 2019, India imposed death penalties for heinous crimes, providing closure to victims’ families.
Example 2: In 2020, South Africa’s long prison sentences for violent crimes satisfied public demand for justice.
Example 3: In 2021, France’s life sentences for terrorists offered retribution to affected communities.
Analysis: These examples illustrate how removing criminals satisfies the need for justice and retribution.

V. Opposing View 1: Rehabilitation

Topic Sentence: Rehabilitation offers a chance for criminals to reform and reintegrate.
Example 1: In 2020, Norway’s rehabilitation programmes significantly reduced reoffending rates.
Example 2: In 2019, Sweden’s focus on rehabilitation over punishment led to successful reintegration of offenders.
Example 3: In 2021, Finland’s humane prison system prioritised rehabilitation, showing positive outcomes.
Analysis: These cases demonstrate the effectiveness of rehabilitation in reducing reoffending and promoting reintegration.

VI. Opposing View 2: Restorative Justice

Topic Sentence: Restorative justice addresses the harm caused and promotes healing.
Example 1: In 2018, New Zealand’s restorative justice practices helped victims and offenders reconcile.
Example 2: In 2019, South Africa’s community justice programmes resolved conflicts and healed communities.
Example 3: In 2020, Canada’s restorative justice initiatives reduced recidivism and repaired harm.
Analysis: These instances show how restorative justice can effectively address crime’s impact and promote healing.

VII. Opposing View 3: Social and Economic Costs

Topic Sentence: Removing criminals from society incurs high social and economic costs.
Example 1: In 2020, the UK faced criticism for the high costs of long-term imprisonment.
Example 2: In 2019, Italy struggled with overcrowded prisons and the associated costs.
Example 3: In 2021, Australia debated the financial burden of extensive incarceration policies.
Analysis: These examples highlight the significant social and economic costs of removing criminals from society.

VIII. Conclusion

Restate Thesis: While removing criminals can protect the public and deter crime, rehabilitation and restorative justice offer viable alternatives that address underlying issues and promote reintegration.
Summary of Key Points: Recap the main supporting and opposing views.
Final Thought: A balanced approach combining removal, rehabilitation, and restorative justice can effectively address crime and promote societal well-being.

History has shown us that crime never pays. Do you agree?

While history often demonstrates that crime does not pay in the long run, there are instances where criminals have benefited from their actions, suggesting a more complex reality.

I. Introduction

Hook: The saying “crime never pays” is widely believed.
Background: Brief overview of historical examples of crime and their outcomes.
Thesis Statement: While history often demonstrates that crime does not pay in the long run, there are instances where criminals have benefited from their actions, suggesting a more complex reality.

II. Supporting View 1: Punishment and Justice

Topic Sentence: Historical examples show that criminals often face severe punishment.
Example 1: In 1989, Nicolae Ceaușescu, the Romanian dictator, was executed after his regime’s crimes were exposed.
Example 2: In 2013, Italian Mafia boss Domenico Raccuglia was arrested and sentenced to life in prison.
Example 3: In 2009, Bernard Madoff, though American, faced global repercussions for his Ponzi scheme, showing the reach of justice.
Analysis: These examples illustrate that crime often leads to punishment and downfall.

III. Supporting View 2: Loss of Reputation and Power

Topic Sentence: Criminals often lose their reputation and power, showing that crime does not pay.
Example 1: In 2011, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was imprisoned for corruption and abuse of power.
Example 2: In 1992, former East German leader Erich Honecker was prosecuted for human rights abuses.
Example 3: In 2018, former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak faced charges for the 1MDB scandal.
Analysis: These cases demonstrate that crime often results in the loss of power and respect.

IV. Opposing View 1: Short-Term Gains

Topic Sentence: Some criminals benefit from their actions in the short term.
Example 1: In 1994, Russian oligarchs amassed wealth during the chaotic privatisation period.
Example 2: In the 1980s, Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar built an empire and gained immense power before his downfall.
Example 3: In 2007, British art thief Leonardo Notarbartolo managed a massive diamond heist in Belgium.
Analysis: These examples show that crime can lead to significant short-term gains.

V. Opposing View 2: Criminal Success Stories

Topic Sentence: Some criminals avoid punishment and retain their gains.
Example 1: In 1980, former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin lived in exile in Saudi Arabia without facing justice.
Example 2: In 2001, former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori fled to Japan and avoided immediate prosecution.
Example 3: In 2010, Indian businessman Lalit Modi fled to the UK to avoid corruption charges and maintained a comfortable life.
Analysis: These instances suggest that some criminals escape justice and enjoy their gains.

VI. Conclusion

Restate Thesis: While history often shows that crime does not pay, there are exceptions where criminals benefit.
Summary of Key Points: Recap the main supporting and opposing views.
Final Thought: Crime’s consequences are complex, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of justice.

‘Terrorists are nothing more than criminals’. Discuss.

Detractors of terrorism criticise it by labelling terrorists as nothing more than criminals as they resort to atrocious acts of violence and bloodshed to achieve their aims. Although this view undoubtedly holds a whit of fidelity, it would be too reductionist and simplistic to believe entirely in it. From a religious and even moral point of view, it must be remembered that all are equal, and even terrorists are ultimately part of the human race. Who are we to judge them and degrade them to nothing more than sinners if we do not understand the complicated situations and environments that they grow up in? Should we not practise what we preach and forgive them for their heinous crimes? It is more than valid to say that the atrocities of terrorists are so frightening that it breeds pure hatred towards them, but it would be myopic to jump the gun and label them as nothing more than criminals.

One of the arguments levelled against terrorists is that their outrageous acts of violence show an absence of compassion and humanity, rendering them as mere sinners who do not deserve to belong to the human race. However, those who argue so fail to realise that terrorists are only doing what they do because of their circumstances. It would be almost impossible for someone living in a well-developed and peaceful country to imagine the environment those growing up in the war-torn Middle-East have to face. The classic example of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one that tells of severe oppression. The teenagers and young men, sometimes even women, of the Middle-East, only become terrorists after they have experienced the

The devastating loss of loved ones, witnessing them being blown up by those of another religion or ideology. Living in a society where you fear for your life every single day, with helicopter attacks and suicide bombings becoming just another feature of daily life, it would be difficult not to be influenced by the extremist beliefs of religious martyrs that resort to violence. Hence, we cannot hastily come to the conclusion that terrorists are any less human than us as it is their extreme circumstances that give them no other alternative but to resort to bloodshed.

Those who strongly oppose terrorism put forth the argument that the very actions of terrorists show a complete lack of love for humanity. This might hold true to a certain extent, but it would take a bigot to not realise why these terrorists are employing the use of violence. As an oppressed minority, it would not be feasible to wage a conventional war with the majority. If the Catholics in Northern Ireland did not fight for their causes with terrorist measures, they would have stood absolutely no chance against the Protestant government. The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka exist today because they would never succeed fighting a direct

war against the Singhalese rulers. We should not condone or even come close to accepting terrorism, but we do have to recognise that what terrorists do is not for the mere sake of killing. It is more than a shout for attention so that the world sees what they are fighting for; it is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to secure their basic freedom and rights.

Many who feel strongly against terrorists dismiss them as nothing more than criminals, as their actions portray them as cold, heartless beings, but to do so would be to lack compassion themselves. It is important to remember the very basis that mankind sets out on; everyone is equal. Whether one adopts a religious view or a moral view, it is clear that all members of the human race, some going as far as including the animal kingdom, are born the same, and should be afforded the same love and respect. Just as we do not discriminate against the minorities, those of a different race, colour or religion, we should not be blinded by our anger against these terrorists, and we have to try to understand that despite their actions of violence and slaughter, they are as human as any one of us.

As the world continues to wage its war against terrorism, we have to face the reality that we will never obliterate it entirely from the face of the earth. There will always be majorities or those in power who impose a tyrannical rule on the minority, and this creates the perfect environment that is conducive for the breeding of terrorism. As voices of the oppressed are drowned out by all-powerful governments, the only war that they can wage is that of terrorism. With fear and insecurity as their weapon, they will continue to march behind their shields of extremist beliefs. We cannot simply judge terrorists to be nothing more than criminals as they are only driven by the extremity of their circumstances. Perhaps one day the world will move towards an integrated global society that respects the rights of the minorities, but until then, terrorism will still flourish, as those who do not receive their basic rights and respect will do that they deem necessary to secure them.

Protected: Capital punishment is unbefitting of a civilised society. Discuss.

Protected: Ex-criminals ought to be given a second chance. Discuss

Protected: In order to cut crime and re-offending, consider measures that would prove effective in your society.

Rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the purpose of the justice system.’ Discuss.

Some argue that the punishment should be the purpose of the system. For the one who committed the crime, payback should be brought back to him/her via the justice system. This form of retributive punishment also marks an objective expression of abhorrence towards violations of law. The degree of punishment should be determined by the severity of the crime. For instance, petty crimes which are should involve a fine, counselling or a short 30-day jail term. While more serious crimes, which involve violent crimes like murder, rape and other aggravating crimes should incur many years or a life sentence. Punishment should clearly enforce the concrete message that crime is wrong and that criminals, who violate the law, will be brought to order. If there is no punishment, then it means there are no consequences for the wrong that has been committed. Under the causality principle, every cause has an effect, and every action should have a consequence. This should be especially true for the actions of criminals, which violate and detriment the laws or rules of society out of their own choices or decisions. Hence, punishment, being the thing that most clearly and concretely illustrates the abhorrence towards and payment or consequences of crime, should be the purpose of the justice system.

Critics may disagree with the above stand. If punishment is the purpose of the system, the only message it is sending out is that the justice system is an unforgiving one, which will ultimately lead to its own stagnation and demise. Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye will eventually make the whole world blind.” In a situation as that of a crime committed, with punishment, nobody benefits. What has happened has already happened. It is a lose-lose situation, not capable of bringing true comfort to the victims of crime, nor giving the perpetrator of the crime his/her appropriate closure. On the other hand, if there are developments towards rehabilitation, at the very least, with a forgiving mindset, the criminal is given the potential to possibly fit back into society and redeem oneself again, and that could be a possible benefit out of the entire situation. While punishment is still necessary to some extent to show that wrongdoings have consequences, but, in the end, can the criminal gain anything out of it? The practical answer is, No!

Defenders of punishment argue that punishment should be the purpose of the system, because it also has deterrent properties, and can subsequently best maintain order in society. With the presence of punishment, it prevents potential criminals from becoming actual criminals. Even for offenders are less likely to repeat their crimes again, as they become “Once bitten, twice shy”. Since prevention is better than cure, punishment, being able to prevent crime, thus best maintains law and order in society, and should be the purpose of the justice system. Specifically, with punishment, it spells out what is acceptable and unacceptable within the law, serving as the “threat” as to what will happen if the law is breached. Countries like Singapore that maintain a strict system of punishment have clearly demonstrated that punishment does help contain crime, particularly socially damaging crime like drug trafficking. Punishment should be the main purpose of justice. It is a simple and effective message.