Dedicate one full body paragraph to discussing the arguments for longer prison sentences, and a separate, equally developed paragraph to exploring alternative crime reduction methods. Avoid presenting only one side strongly, as this will undermine your ability to 'discuss both views' comprehensively and could lead to a lower score for Task Response.

When discussing longer sentences, you could mention the concept of 'deterrence' and 'incapacitation' (e.g., the strict legal systems in countries like Singapore). For alternative methods, consider 'rehabilitative programs' (e.g., Norway's focus on restorative justice) or 'addressing root causes' such as poverty, lack of education, and unemployment.

A common mistake students make is simply listing alternatives without explaining *how* they reduce crime, or merely stating that longer sentences deter criminals without elaborating on the mechanism. To avoid this, ensure each point is followed by a clear explanation of its impact on crime rates, demonstrating a deeper understanding of the issue.

To effectively transition between the two opposing views, use contrastive linking phrases at the beginning of your second body paragraph. Phrases like 'However, an alternative perspective posits that...' or 'Conversely, proponents of different strategies argue that...' clearly signal a shift in focus while maintaining coherence.

Examiners look for a nuanced discussion that critically evaluates the merits and drawbacks of both approaches, rather than just describing them. A band 8-9 response will demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of the complexities of crime reduction, using precise academic vocabulary related to criminology and social policy, and presenting a well-supported, clear personal opinion.