In some countries, prisons are the most common solution to crimes. However, some others believe that education is a more effective solution. To what extent do you agree or disagree? v.1

Many people believe that the reduction of the crime rate will be achieved more effectively through better education rather than prison sentences. I disagree with this view, because I consider that both approaches have their own distinctive merits and should each play an integral role in tackling crime. On the one hand, I would argue that prison is effective in dealing with offenders. One reason is that a person who commits a crime must learn that unlawful actions have consequences. Murderers, for instance, must be imprisoned for many years and such a punishment may act as a deterrent. They know that they will face loss of freedom, social isolation and separation from their loved ones if they carry out such a criminal act. Another reason is that when serious offenders are behind bars, they are no longer a danger to society and people can walk in the streets or relax in their homes more safely. On the other hand, I consider that education has a complementary role to play. Firstly, in schools, students should study some aspects of the law which affect their lives. Having some knowledge of the law, students are better prepared to avoid situations which may involve them in crime or becoming a victim. For example, youngsters must study the important laws about driving and road safety. Secondly, in prisons themselves, educational programmes must aim to provide prisoners with skills and qualifications to find work when they are released. I believe that prison sentences are one essential weapon in the fight against crime, and I disagree that providing better education alone is a more effective solution to reduce the crime rate