Crime & LawOpinion (Agree / Disagree)
IELTS Essay: Longer Prison Sentences (Band 9 vs 6.5)
In short
Below is a full Band 9 model answer to this IELTS Writing Task 2 question, the same question written at Band 6.5, and a criterion-by-criterion breakdown of exactly what separates them — so you can see what to change in your own writing. Then check your essay with the free tool.
The question
Some people believe that imposing longer prison sentences is the most effective way to reduce crime in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
How to approach a Opinion (Agree / Disagree) question
For an agree/disagree question, decide your position before you write and make it unmistakable in the introduction. You can fully agree, fully disagree, or partially agree — all are fine — but you must then defend that single position consistently across both body paragraphs. The most common Task Response error here is sitting on the fence: giving arguments for both sides without ever committing to a view.
The plan
- 01Introduction: paraphrase the demand for longer sentences and state a clear position that they are not the most effective way to cut crime.
- 02Body 1: argue that longer sentences barely deter impulsive or desperate offenders and often harden inmates, raising reoffending.
- 03Body 2: argue that tackling root causes - deprivation, unemployment and weak rehabilitation - reduces crime more effectively.
- 04Conclusion: concede that prison is needed for dangerous offenders but reaffirm that prevention and reform work better than longer terms.
Band 9 model answer
Rising crime rates prompt many commentators to demand ever harsher custodial terms, in the conviction that locking offenders away for longer will make communities safer. Although lengthy sentences clearly have their place in dealing with dangerous offenders, I largely disagree that they represent the single most effective deterrent, since they treat the symptoms of crime rather than its underlying causes.
The central flaw in relying on longer sentences is that would-be criminals seldom weigh the precise length of a punishment before offending. Much crime is impulsive or born of desperation, so the prospect of, say, ten years rather than five rarely enters the calculation of a person driven by addiction or poverty. Furthermore, prolonged incarceration frequently hardens rather than reforms: inmates emerge institutionalised, stripped of employable skills and steeped in the very criminal networks that first drew them in, which raises the likelihood of reoffending.
A far more productive strategy tackles the conditions that breed criminality in the first place. Investment in education, stable employment and community policing addresses the deprivation and hopelessness from which much offending springs, while well-funded rehabilitation equips prisoners to rejoin society as law-abiding citizens. Countries that have prioritised such measures over punitive sentencing, notably in parts of Scandinavia, tend to report markedly lower recidivism, which suggests that prevention and reform outperform sheer severity.
In conclusion, while custodial sentences remain a necessary tool for dangerous individuals, I do not accept that simply extending them is the most effective route to a safer society. Directing resources towards prevention and genuine rehabilitation promises far more durable results than confinement alone.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays crime is a big problem in many country and some people think that if we give longer prison sentence to criminals, the crime will go down. In this essay I will explain why I do not fully agree with this idea.
Firstly, it is true that prison can stop some people from doing crime. When a criminal is in the jail, he cannot hurt other people, so the society is more safe for some time. Also, when people see that the punishment is very hard, maybe they will be scared and they will not break the law. For this reason, some people believe longer sentence is the best solution to reduce the crime.
However, in my opinion longer prison is not always the best way. Many criminals do crime because they are poor or they don't have a job, so a long punishment does not solve this problem. Also, when a person stay in prison for many years, he can become more dangerous because he learn bad things from other prisoners. When he come out from the jail, it is very hard for him to find a job and he do the crime again. A better way is to help criminals to change, so the government should give more education and job to young people and teach prisoners a skill.
In conclusion, longer prison sentence can help a little bit, but I do not think it is the best way to reduce crime. It is better to fix the real reason of crime and help criminals to become good people again.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Takes a clear position ('I largely disagree that they represent the single most effective deterrent') and concedes the opposing view that 'lengthy sentences clearly have their place' before rejecting it. | Answers the question and gives an opinion, but ideas such as 'longer prison is not always the best way' stay general and thinly developed. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Ideas build through meaning ('The central flaw in relying on longer sentences', 'which raises the likelihood of reoffending', 'A far more productive strategy') rather than by signposting. | Leans on mechanical markers ('Firstly', 'Also', 'However', 'In conclusion') and lists points one after another. |
| Lexical Resource | Precise collocation such as 'harsher custodial terms', 'prolonged incarceration' and 'markedly lower recidivism'. | Adequate but repetitive high-frequency words: 'crime', 'prison' and 'people' recur throughout. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | Wide range of accurate complex structures, e.g. 'inmates emerge institutionalised, stripped of employable skills and steeped in the very criminal networks that first drew them in'. | Mostly simple sentences with noticeable slips ('many country', 'more safe', 'a person stay', 'he learn') that do not block meaning. |
Examiner's note
The Band 9 answer states an unambiguous position, fairly concedes the opposing argument, and drives its case home with precise vocabulary and a wide range of accurate complex sentences. The Band 6.5 response is relevant and easy to follow, but its ideas remain general, its linking is mechanical, and recurring grammar slips such as 'he learn bad things' and 'more safe' keep it firmly mid-band.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| harsher custodial terms | longer or more severe prison sentences |
| treat the symptoms rather than its underlying causes | deal with the visible effects instead of the real source of a problem |
| would-be criminals | people who might potentially commit a crime |
| born of desperation | caused by a state of hopelessness or extreme need |
| prolonged incarceration | being kept in prison for a long time |
| hardens rather than reforms | makes someone more criminal instead of improving them |
| steeped in criminal networks | deeply involved in groups of criminals |
| markedly lower recidivism | a clearly reduced rate of released offenders committing further crimes |
Frequently asked questions
What does 'to what extent do you agree or disagree' require?
It asks you to state how far you accept the statement and then defend that position. You may agree completely, disagree completely, or partly agree, but you must commit to one clear stance and sustain it from the introduction through to the conclusion rather than sitting on the fence.
Should I mention the opposing side in an opinion essay?
Acknowledging the other view briefly can strengthen your essay, because it shows you have weighed the issue fully. Just make sure your own position clearly dominates and that most of your development defends it.
How many main ideas should each body paragraph contain?
One well-developed idea per paragraph is safest. Explain the point, give a reason, and add an example or a likely consequence so the examiner sees genuine depth rather than a list of undeveloped claims.