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
.