Crime & LawDiscussion (Both Views + Opinion)
IELTS Essay: Longer Prison Sentences vs Alternatives to Reduce Crime (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 think that the best way to reduce crime is to give criminals longer prison sentences. Others believe there are more effective alternative ways to reduce crime. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
How to approach a Discussion (Both Views + Opinion) question
A discussion question asks you to do two distinct things: present both views fairly, and give your own opinion. Devote one body paragraph to each view, then make sure your position is clear — either woven through or stated plainly in the conclusion. The classic mistake is discussing both sides but forgetting to give an opinion at all, which directly costs Task Response marks.
The plan
- 01Introduction: Paraphrase the question (how best to reduce crime), lay out the two competing views (longer prison sentences versus alternative approaches), and state a clear position that favours the alternatives while conceding prison has a limited role.
- 02Body 1 (the longer-sentences view): Explain the reasoning behind harsher sentences — deterrence discourages would-be offenders and incapacitation removes dangerous criminals from society, which is a genuine argument for serious violent crime.
- 03Body 2 (the alternatives view + your opinion): Argue that much crime stems from poverty, addiction and lack of opportunity, so investing in education, rehabilitation and community support tackles root causes and lowers reoffending more sustainably than imprisonment alone.
- 04Conclusion: Acknowledge that custodial sentences are needed for dangerous individuals, but restate that addressing the social conditions behind crime is the more effective and just long-term strategy.
Band 9 model answer
How best to curb criminal behaviour remains a deeply contentious issue for governments worldwide. While one school of thought maintains that harsher custodial sentences are the most effective deterrent, others argue that tackling the underlying causes of crime yields far better results. Having weighed both positions carefully, I am firmly persuaded by the latter.
The case for lengthier prison terms rests on the twin logic of deterrence and incapacitation. Proponents contend that the prospect of spending years behind bars discourages would-be offenders from breaking the law in the first place, while keeping persistent criminals off the streets protects the wider public from harm. There is undeniable intuitive appeal to this argument, particularly in the case of serious violent crimes, where public safety must surely take precedence over the interests of the offender.
Nevertheless, I find the alternative approach considerably more convincing. Much crime is rooted in poverty, addiction, and a lack of opportunity, none of which a prison cell addresses. Investing in early education, drug rehabilitation programmes, and community support tackles these root causes directly, reducing the likelihood that offenders will reoffend once they are released. Countries that emphasise rehabilitation over pure punishment tend to enjoy markedly lower reoffending rates, which suggests that lengthy imprisonment often treats the symptom rather than the underlying disease.
In conclusion, although custodial sentences clearly have a role in dealing with dangerous individuals, I believe that addressing the social conditions that breed crime is a far more sustainable strategy. A society that helps offenders rebuild their lives, rather than simply locking them away, is likely to be both safer and more just in the long run.
The same question at Band 6.5
Nowadays, crime is a big problem in many countries around the world. Some people think that longer prison sentences is the best way to reduce crime, while other people believe there are more effective ways. In this essay I will discuss both views and give my own opinion.
On the one hand, many people think that longer prison sentences can reduce crime. When criminals stay in prison for a long time, they cannot do more crimes and society is safer. Also, other people will be afraid to do crimes because they don't want to go to prison for many years. So this can stop them from doing bad things. This is a good way to protect people.
On the other hand, some people believe there are better ways to reduce crime. For example, the government can give more education and jobs to people. Many criminals do crimes because they are poor and they don't have money. If they have good job, they will not do crimes anymore. Also, the police can help young people and teach them to not choose crime. This is also very important for the future.
In my opinion, I think both ways are good, but the second way is better. Longer prison is important for very dangerous criminals, but for other people, education and jobs can help more. In conclusion, I believe the government should use more alternative ways to reduce the crime in society.
What separates them, criterion by criterion
| Criterion | Band 9 | Band 6.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Task Response | Discusses both views fairly and then commits to a clear, sustained position ('firmly persuaded by the latter'). Each idea is developed with reasoning rather than merely stated — the claim that alternatives work better is supported by explaining that 'a prison cell' cannot address 'poverty, addiction, and a lack of opportunity', ending with the pointed 'treats the symptom rather than the underlying disease'. | Covers both views and does give an opinion ('both ways are good, but the second way is better'), and stays on topic throughout. However, ideas are asserted, not explained — 'If they have good job, they will not do crimes anymore' is a bare claim with no reasoning for why or how, and both sides receive roughly equal but shallow coverage. |
| Coherence & Cohesion | Cohesion is varied and unobtrusive: the participle opener 'Having weighed both positions', the pivot 'Nevertheless', and back-reference through 'the latter' guide the reader without announcing themselves, and each paragraph builds on the last. | Organisation is clear but the cohesion is mechanical and formulaic — 'On the one hand', 'On the other hand', 'So', 'In conclusion', and 'Also' opening a sentence in both body paragraphs. The signposting is easy to follow yet repetitive and predictable. |
| Lexical Resource | Precise, natural topic collocation: 'custodial sentences', 'deterrence and incapacitation', 'would-be offenders', 'take precedence', 'root causes' and 'reoffending rates' are used accurately and idiomatically. | Leans on a narrow band of high-frequency words that repeat heavily — 'crime/crimes' and 'people' recur constantly, alongside 'big problem', 'good way' and 'very important' — and uses the weak phrasing 'do crimes' instead of a collocation such as 'commit crimes'. |
| Grammatical Range & Accuracy | A wide range of complex structures is handled accurately, including the participle clause 'Having weighed both positions', the relative clause 'none of which a prison cell addresses', and the concessive 'although custodial sentences clearly have a role'. No errors. | Mostly simple and compound sentences strung together with 'and', 'but' and 'because', with few complex forms. Minor slips remain that do not block meaning: 'longer prison sentences is' (subject-verb agreement), 'have good job' (missing article), and 'reduce the crime' (unnecessary article). |
Examiner's note
The Band 9 answer wins on every criterion because it does far more than name both sides: it develops each with reasoning, commits to and sustains a clear opinion, and links ideas through varied, unobtrusive cohesion such as the participle opening 'Having weighed both positions'. Its vocabulary is precise and idiomatic — 'custodial sentences', 'deterrence and incapacitation', 'root causes' — and its grammar ranges confidently across concessive, relative and participial structures without error. The Band 6.5 answer is competent and easy to follow: it addresses both views, signposts them clearly, and reaches a reasoned opinion. Its ceiling is that ideas are asserted rather than explained ('If they have good job, they will not do crimes anymore'), cohesion leans on mechanical markers ('On the one hand', 'Also', 'So'), vocabulary recycles a small set of high-frequency words ('do crimes', 'good way', 'very important'), and the sentence range stays largely simple and compound, with minor slips like 'sentences is' and 'reduce the crime'. Accurate and clear, but neither developed nor varied enough to climb higher.
Vocabulary from the Band 9 answer
| Word / phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| to curb criminal behaviour | to control or reduce crime |
| custodial sentence | a punishment that involves being sent to prison |
| deterrent | something that discourages people from doing something |
| incapacitation | stopping someone from offending by keeping them locked up |
| would-be offenders | people who might commit a crime |
| to take precedence | to be treated as more important than something else |
| root causes | the underlying reasons behind a problem |
| to reoffend | to commit another crime after being punished |
| sustainable strategy | an approach that keeps working well over the long term |
Frequently asked questions
How should I structure a 'discuss both views and give your opinion' essay?
Devote one body paragraph to each view, presenting it fairly with a reason, then make your own opinion clear — usually by leaning towards one side. State your position in the introduction as well, so the examiner is never left guessing what you actually think. A four-paragraph shape (introduction, view one, view two blended with your opinion, conclusion) works well and is easy to control under time pressure.
Do I have to give my own opinion, and can I favour one side?
Yes — the instruction 'give your own opinion' means an opinion is compulsory, and leaving it out caps your Task Response score. You are free to side firmly with one view, as the Band 9 model does, or to say both matter but one is more effective. What you must avoid is discussing both views and then never revealing which one you support.
How do I use examples for a crime topic without inventing statistics?
You do not need numbers or named studies, and inventing them can hurt you if they sound false. General, logical examples are enough — explain a cause-and-effect chain (for instance, why poverty can push people towards crime, or why rehabilitation lowers reoffending). Reasoned explanation of your ideas earns more marks than a fabricated figure ever would.