• Long Term Jail Sentences
• Not as expensive as rehab
• Criminals don't deserve special funding and education
• Deters future crime
• Satisfies the public
• Criminals are inherently bad - they will always re-offend
• Rehab programmes ineffective - criminals re-offend
• Longer time before criminals get the chance to re-offend
• Rehabilitation
• Keeping prisoners is expensive anyway - longer jail term higher the cost
• Rehab progammes can be used to make or save money - eg. build things
• Has been found that heavy sentences (and even death sentence) have no effect on crime rate
• Long-time inmates are most likely to re-offend
• Rehab programme is better than nothing
• Long term jail sentences create "us" and "them" situation
• Crime and criminals are social problem, we have to try and re-integrate criminals into society, rehab tries to do this

3. The next stage is to organise these ideas into an essay plan. It is helpful to use linking words in your plan. From the above ideas you might come up with a plan like this.
i) Intro- rehabilitation a contentious issue. Opinion rehab still valuable.
ii) Arguments against rehab- not effective and too expensive - unfair that criminals receive funding and education. Though, some truth to these two points, neither offers better or cheaper solution.
iii) True rehab is expensive but, keeping prisoners for a long time is more expensive - furthermore, rehab programmes can be used to generate money eg Biblemum Track.
iv) Also true rehab not always effective, but more effective than nothing + long time inmates more likely to re-offend.
v) It is unfair that criminals receive funding but no rehab- risk of "us" "them" situation
vi) Conclusion- social problem so rehabilitation required
The next thing is to write the actual essay. The linking words in the essay below have been underlined.

Model Answers:
The ways in which a society deals with those who break the law has long been a contentious issue. Often the debate is centred around the value of rehabilitation programmes, as well as notions of just and adequate punishment. That is to say, there are many who question both the principles behind, and the effectiveness of programmes which seek to re-educate criminals before they are re-introduced to society. It is my opinion that even assuming limited effectiveness, these programmes are ethically and practically valuable.
Arguments against rehabilitation are usually based on two points. One is that given the great expense rehabilitation programmes represent to the taxpayer, they are not effective enough in preventing repeat offences. The other is that it is not fair that criminals receive expensive education programmes, and that, quite the opposite, they should be punished with long jail sentences instead. Though it cannot be denied that there is some truth to both of these points, it is also true that neither offers a more effective solution, and moreover nor do they offer a cheaper solution.

Firstly, it is indeed true that rehabilitation programmes often come at great financial cost to the public, but the upkeep of prisoners is expensive anyway. Longer jail terms would entail even greater costs, but with rehabilitation programmes and projects the opportunity at least exists to make some of these costs up. Prisoners can be put to work in community service projects, which both provide the prisoners with valuable training, and provide the public with much needed services. A good example of this was the recent construction, in Western Australia, of the Biblemum Trail, a 600km hiking track with facilities all along the way. During this construction project inmates received instruction in various different areas of the building trade, including workplace integration and deadline responsibilities.

It is also true that rehabilitation programmes are often not effective, and that upon release some inmates quickly re-offend. However, it cannot be denied that having a rehabilitation programme is more effective than not having one at all, and that at least it offers prisoners more options when they are released. More importantly, long time inmates often report that they repeat offend simply because they are unused to, and unprepared for civilian life.

Secondly, though it does seem unfair that criminals receive taxpayer financed education programmes, it is in everybody's best interests to re-integrate these people into society, because it follows that whilst they remain outside of society they not only are a danger, but also cost society a lot of money. Punishing criminals with long jail terms in actual fact punishes the average civilian just as much as the criminal because it creates a "them and us" society by establishing and reinforcing a criminal community within prisons, which results in more crime. Therefore it is apparent from this that crime should really be seen as a social problem and criminals as members of society that require help to fit in. As such, locking these members of society up in jails for long periods of time is not the best way to help make these adjustments, and moreover neither is it a cost efficient way of dealing with these people.


Task 2 :
You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
"Should criminals be punished with lengthy jail terms or re-educated and rehabilitated using, for instance, community service programmes, before being re-introduced to society."
Present a written case or argument to an educated non-specialist audience on the above topic.
You should write at least 250 words.

Suggestion
1. When approaching task 2 questions the first step is to look carefully at the question and make sure you understand what it is asking you to do. This will often involve underlining the key words and phrases. The key words in this case are "should", "or", "for instance" "before", and the topics- "lengthy jail terms" and "rehabilitated". The first three words are important because they point out the different parts of the question and how they fit together. "Should", of course, indicates that this is a question that is asking you to decide whether a particular action is good or not, and when it is combined with "or", you know that this decision is between two specified actions. In this case the actions are methods of dealing with criminals, which, naturally, are our two topics - "lengthy jail terms" and "rehabilitation".
If you are not sure what "rehabilitation" means the clue is provided by the example linking word "for instance", which suggest that community service programmes are one form of rehabilitation (and re-education). "Before" is important because it defines the terms of the question by pointing out that the criminals will, eventually, be released from jail, and that this should be a basic assumption in your argument. So, this question is asking you to decide whether lengthy jail terms are better than rehabilitation, but it is up to you to define the terms of the argument and point out exactly what you understand the issue to be.

2. The next stage is to brainstorm as many ideas on the topic as you can. Time is severely limited, so it is often a good idea to divide your ideas in a way that will help develop an argument, which usually means dividing the ideas into two groups, either into the two topics you must choose between, or arguments "for" and "against" the statement, or the "advantages" and "disadvantages" of an issue or topic. In this case the two topics "long term jail sentences" and "rehabilitation" form our group headings.

• Long Term Jail Sentences
• Not as expensive as rehab
• Criminals don't deserve special funding and education
• Deters future crime
• Satisfies the public
• Criminals are inherently bad - they will always re-offend
• Rehab programmes ineffective - criminals re-offend
• Longer time before criminals get the chance to re-offend
• Rehabilitation
• Keeping prisoners is expensive anyway - longer jail term higher the cost
• Rehab progammes can be used to make or save money - eg. build things
• Has been found that heavy sentences (and even death sentence) have no effect on crime rate
• Long-time inmates are most likely to re-offend
• Rehab programme is better than nothing
• Long term jail sentences create "us" and "them" situation
• Crime and criminals are social problem, we have to try and re-integrate criminals into society, rehab tries to do this

3. The next stage is to organise these ideas into an essay plan. It is helpful to use linking words in your plan. From the above ideas you might come up with a plan like this.
i) Intro- rehabilitation a contentious issue. Opinion rehab still valuable.
ii) Arguments against rehab- not effective and too expensive - unfair that criminals receive funding and education. Though, some truth to these two points, neither offers better or cheaper solution.
iii) True rehab is expensive but, keeping prisoners for a long time is more expensive - furthermore, rehab programmes can be used to generate money eg Biblemum Track.
iv) Also true rehab not always effective, but more effective than nothing + long time inmates more likely to re-offend.
v) It is unfair that criminals receive funding but no rehab- risk of "us" "them" situation
vi) Conclusion- social problem so rehabilitation required
The next thing is to write the actual essay. The linking words in the essay below have been underlined.

Model Answers:
The ways in which a society deals with those who break the law has long been a contentious issue. Often the debate is centred around the value of rehabilitation programmes, as well as notions of just and adequate punishment. That is to say, there are many who question both the principles behind, and the effectiveness of programmes which seek to re-educate criminals before they are re-introduced to society. It is my opinion that even assuming limited effectiveness, these programmes are ethically and practically valuable.
Arguments against rehabilitation are usually based on two points. One is that given the great expense rehabilitation programmes represent to the taxpayer, they are not effective enough in preventing repeat offences. The other is that it is not fair that criminals receive expensive education programmes, and that, quite the opposite, they should be punished with long jail sentences instead. Though it cannot be denied that there is some truth to both of these points, it is also true that neither offers a more effective solution, and moreover nor do they offer a cheaper solution.

Firstly, it is indeed true that rehabilitation programmes often come at great financial cost to the public, but the upkeep of prisoners is expensive anyway. Longer jail terms would entail even greater costs, but with rehabilitation programmes and projects the opportunity at least exists to make some of these costs up. Prisoners can be put to work in community service projects, which both provide the prisoners with valuable training, and provide the public with much needed services. A good example of this was the recent construction, in Western Australia, of the Biblemum Trail, a 600km hiking track with facilities all along the way. During this construction project inmates received instruction in various different areas of the building trade, including workplace integration and deadline responsibilities.

It is also true that rehabilitation programmes are often not effective, and that upon release some inmates quickly re-offend. However, it cannot be denied that having a rehabilitation programme is more effective than not having one at all, and that at least it offers prisoners more options when they are released. More importantly, long time inmates often report that they repeat offend simply because they are unused to, and unprepared for civilian life.

Secondly, though it does seem unfair that criminals receive taxpayer financed education programmes, it is in everybody's best interests to re-integrate these people into society, because it follows that whilst they remain outside of society they not only are a danger, but also cost society a lot of money. Punishing criminals with long jail terms in actual fact punishes the average civilian just as much as the criminal because it creates a "them and us" society by establishing and reinforcing a criminal community within prisons, which results in more crime. Therefore it is apparent from this that crime should really be seen as a social problem and criminals as members of society that require help to fit in. As such, locking these members of society up in jails for long periods of time is not the best way to help make these adjustments, and moreover neither is it a cost efficient way of dealing with these people.