Prison is not a cure for crime. Society should try other means to solve the problem of crime. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

For this 'To what extent' question, clearly state your degree of agreement or disagreement in your introduction, for example, 'I largely agree that prison is not a cure and alternative means are crucial.' While maintaining this stance, acknowledge the valid role prisons play in incapacitation and deterrence in a concessionary clause (e.g., 'While prisons serve a vital function in protecting society...'), then pivot back to their limitations as a 'cure' and the necessity of other solutions.

Argue that high global recidivism rates demonstrate prison's failure to rehabilitate, often acting as 'schools of crime.' Contrast this with examples like Norway's focus on restorative justice and rehabilitation programs, which have demonstrably lower re-offending rates. Also, discuss addressing root causes such as poverty, lack of education, and mental health issues through community-based initiatives, citing studies that link these factors to criminal behaviour.

A common pitfall is discussing the pros and cons of prison in general terms without directly addressing the core assertion: 'prison is not a cure for crime.' Students often describe prison functions without evaluating their effectiveness as a solution or cure. To avoid this, ensure every argument explicitly links back to whether a particular aspect of the penal system cures crime or if alternative means are more effective in achieving that 'cure.'

Employ a 'concession and contrast' strategy. Begin a paragraph by acknowledging a counter-argument or a limited benefit of the current system (e.g., 'Admittedly, incarceration provides immediate public safety...'), then use a strong transition to introduce your main argument that challenges or elaborates on this (e.g., '...however, this punitive approach rarely addresses the underlying causes of crime, leading to high recidivism.'). This demonstrates nuanced thinking.

Examiners look for a sophisticated understanding of the nuances of criminal justice, moving beyond a simplistic 'prisons are bad' or 'prisons are good' stance. A band 8-9 answer will critically evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches in curing crime, using precise academic vocabulary related to criminology (e.g., rehabilitation, incapacitation, restorative justice, recidivism) and providing well-supported arguments with logical progression and real-world examples.