+0

Some people believe that if a person once becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. To what extent do you agree/disagree with this statement?

It is undoubted to say that the way people think change along with the variation of the societies, but it doesn't mean that everything has finished its changing. The way societies consider offenders has long been the subject of intense discussions. Some people point out that once committing a crime, a person will always be a criminal. Personally, I complety disagree with this viewpoint.

On the one hand, there appears to an explainable fear of re-offenders when they are put back to societies, arised from common attitudes. For instance, in the United States, almost 44 percent return before the end of their first year out. Many people being delinquent have the blood of craving for sins has flown through their veins for ages. A leopard can't change its spots, so then they will do evilest things once again, no matter how long they were in prison. Besides, it seems harsh for criminals to get back to life normally. Due to this fear, employers can barely hire the ones who got previous convictions to work for them. Hard to ake out a living, the ones who just expired imprisonment lapse into crime again: pickpocket, shoplifting,... Difficulties looming everywhere is acting as deterrent for those trying to turn back.

Nevertheless, despite the deterrent, emancipists have been trying to prove the opposite side. Nowadays, lots of communities are working as the normalization sector for criminals who finished their time. In addition, the major part of the released didn’t get back to prison. It is no more inhuman than refuse their attempt: above all crimes they committed, they’re human and have the same rights to correct the faults with others. For example, Tran Nhut Thanh, because of penurious and wandering childhood, had four times being in jail. Finally, he turned back to life and became a factory worker. When the will to live outweighs the “cold blood”, a criminal can become just a person with no one-sided attitudes on.

In conlusion, I strongly believe that there’s no limit for criminals when coming back to life. The success of this process are combined by the willing of communities and offenders theirselves.

+0

Please post essays, paragraphs, dialogues and other writing in the essay forum so a moderator does not have to move your post.
https://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayReportCompositionWriting/Forum9.htm

+0

Most of your essay is not understandable. It uses words and phrases in very odd and strange combinations. I cannot make out your main arguments. Do not try to write in exotic ways. Write a straightforward essay using plain, standard English and you will be much better off.


Do not use ellipses or contractions in a formal essay.
Do not use a "memorized" opening that could be applied to any topic.
Do not use inappropriate vocabulary words (religious or archaic.)
Do not use flowery language, clever aphorisms or sayings as they usually do not work very well in the context of a formal essay.


It is undoubted (wrong word) to say that the way people think change along with the variation of the societies, (This makes no sense. I can't understand this sentence.) but it doesn't mean that everything has finished its changing. (That is not good English. I do not know what you mean. ) The way societies consider offenders has long been the subject of intense discussions. (That is not true. This seems like a memorized answer that you use for most, if not all, essays. Examiners do not look favorably on "pat" answers. You must introduce each topic in a unique way.) Some people point out that once committing a crime, a person will always be a criminal. Personally, I complety (spelling) disagree with this viewpoint.


On the one hand, there appears to an explainable fear of re-offenders when they are put back to societies, arised from common attitudes. For instance, in the United States, almost 44 percent return before the end of their first year out. Many people being delinquent (That may not be a crime. They may just be a few days late paying the rent. ) have the blood of craving (That is a very strange combination) for sins (Sin is a religious concept. For example, if a Muslim eats pork, that is a sin. If a Hindu eats beef, that is a sin. Everybody on the planet commits sin of some kind or other. If you are a Catholic, greed and pride are sins. ) has flown through their veins (This is quite flowery language. It is not suitable for an academic essay. Besides, blood flows, not flies, in the circulatory system.) for ages. A leopard can't change its spots, (Avoid using aphorisms and sayings in academic essays.) so then they will do evilest (Evil is a religious concept. Here you need illegal or unlawful. These are adjectives describing criminal acts.) things once again, no matter how long they were in prison. Besides, it seems very difficult harsh for criminals to get back to living as an honest member of society. life normally. Due to this fear, employers are reluctant to can barely hire the criminals ones who got previous convictions to work for them. Hard to ake (That is not a word.) out a living, the ones who just expired imprisonment (wrong expression) lapse into crime again: pickpocket, shoplifting,... (Do not use ellipses, "etc." or phrases like "and so on" in an academic essay.) Difficulties looming everywhere is (subject/verb mismatch) acting as deterrent for those trying to reform their lives. turn back.

Nevertheless, despite the deterrent, emancipists (That is not a word used today. An emancipist is one of a group of ex-convicts in early 19th-century Australia. The term was also applied to members of a political group which campaigned for reforms from the 1820s to the early 1840s. None of them are alive today. ) have been trying to prove the opposite side. Nowadays, lots of communities are working as the normalization sector (That is not a term I recognize.) for criminals who finished serving their time. In addition, the major part of the released didn’t get back to prison. (That does not make sense.) It is no more inhuman than refuse their attempt: above all crimes they committed, they’re human and have the same rights to correct the faults (I don't know what you mean.) with others. For example, Tran Nhut Thanh, because of penurious and wandering (This word does not work here.) childhood, served four prison sentences. times being in jail. Finally, he turned back to life and gave up his life of crime and became a factory worker. When the will to live (That does not make sense. "Will to live" applies to people who are very sick and on the brink of death.) outweighs the “cold blood”, a criminal can become just a person with no one-sided attitudes on.

In conlusion, I strongly believe that there’s (Do not use contractions in a formal essay.) no limit for criminals when coming back to life. (Come back to life means that they were dead, and now they are alive.) The success of this process are combined by the willing of communities and offenders theirselves. (wrong form)