It is often believed that the most appropriate step to reduce the crime rate is to provide education for offenders because this will help them to find employment. Research has also revealed that a low level of education is a reason to commit an offence by a criminal. I do not agree with the statement that because this approach is expensive and chances of reoffending remains in society. This essay will explain the reasons for my disagreement using the examples of two united nations- the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
To begin with, the main reason behind not providing education for criminals is that cost of this step is too high. This will increase the burden on the government's shoulders. Furthermore, the government will start neglecting the other sectors of society such as healthcare, school- education, and public transport. For instance, the United Kingdom Crime Association consulted with the government of their nation to allocate funds for education in prisons. As a result, other public sectors suffered and witnessed 35% of decrement in their funding.
The second reason is that education does not guarantee that offenders will not commit a crime again after imprisonment. Take West Virginia as an example, a northwest state in the United States of America, where 67% of educated-criminals committed the crimes again after release from prisons. This was mainly because hardcore criminals have no impact on education and these expert criminals persuade young offenders to re-offend. Therefore, it is futile to educate criminals.
In conclusion, it is true educating offenders in prisons is not an effective way to curtail crime because it requires a great deal of money and the most of the criminals resort to crime again after being released from prisons. 
It is  
often
 believed that the most appropriate step to  
reduce
 the  
crime
 rate is to provide  
education
 for  
offenders
  because
 this will  
help them to find
 employment. Research has  
also
 revealed that a low level of  
education
 is a  
reason
 to commit an  
offence
 by a  
criminal
. I do not  
agree
 with the statement that  
because
 this approach is expensive and chances of  
reoffending
 remains in society. This essay will  
explain
 the  
reasons
 for my disagreement using the examples of two  
united nations
- the  
United
 Kingdom and the  
United
 States of America.
To  
begin
 with, the main  
reason
 behind not providing  
education
 for  
criminals
 is that cost of this step is too high. This will increase the burden on the  
government
's shoulders.  
Furthermore
, the  
government
 will  
start
 neglecting the other sectors of society such as healthcare, school-  
education
, and public transport.  
For instance
, the  
United
 Kingdom  
Crime
 Association consulted with the  
government
 of their nation to allocate funds for  
education
 in  
prisons
.  
As a result
, other public sectors suffered and witnessed 35% of decrement in their funding.
The second  
reason
 is that  
education
 does not guarantee that  
offenders
 will not commit a  
crime
 again after imprisonment. Take West Virginia as an example, a northwest state in the  
United
 States of America, where 67% of educated-criminals committed the  
crimes
 again after release from  
prisons
. This was  
mainly
  because
 hardcore  
criminals
 have no impact on  
education
 and these expert  
criminals
 persuade young  
offenders
 to re-offend.  
Therefore
, it is futile to educate criminals. 
In conclusion
, it is true educating  
offenders
 in  
prisons
 is not an effective way to curtail  
crime
  because
 it requires a great deal of money and the most of the  
criminals
 resort to  
crime
 again after  
being released
 from  
prisons
.