once a criminal always a criminal essay

Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

The Harper Doctrine: Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal

Liberal and conservatives have agreed that our criminal justice system should rehabilitate offenders—until now.

I n February 1993, Canada’s crime rate stood at an all-time high, Brian Mulroney was prime minister, and a Conservative-dominated House of Commons committee released a report on crime prevention that held no surprises for those who followed criminal justice policy. It described the “inherent inadequacy of the criminal justice system” as a means of addressing the problem, pointing out: “If locking up those who violate the law contributed to safer societies then the United States should be the safest country in the world. In fact the United States affords a glaring example of the limited impact that criminal justice responses may have on crime…. Evidence from the U.S. is that costly repressive measures alone fail to deter crime.”

The committee chair, Conservative Member of Parliament and former RCMP officer Bob Horner, told the press, “If anyone had told me when I became an MP nine years ago that I’d be looking at the social causes of crime, I’d have told them that they were nuts. I’d have said, ‘Lock them up for life and throw away the key.’ Not any more.”

S kepticism about the idea that imprisonment constitutes a good solution to the crime problem began decades before these stark statements. In 1938, for example, a Royal Commission examining the country’s penal system concluded: “The undeniable responsibility of the state to those held in its custody is to see that they are not returned to freedom worse than when they were taken in charge. This responsibility has been officially recognized in Canada for nearly a century but, although recognized, it has not been discharged. The evidence before this Commission convinces us that there are very few, if any, prisoners who enter our penitentiaries who do not leave them worse members of society than when they entered them.”

We now know, quite conclusively, that the commission was correct. Though necessary in some cases, imprisonment has limited usefulness and does not rehabilitate. Three decades later, in 1969, a blue-ribbon, federally appointed committee came to the same conclusion: “In all cases where there has been no finding of dangerousness, sentences of imprisonment should be imposed only where protection of society clearly requires such a penalty…. The Committee wishes to emphasize the danger of overestimating the necessity for and the value of long terms of imprisonment except in special circumstances.”

Over the years, the tension between what was seen as good policy and actual practice led many independent committees and commissions to examine how we could create a criminal justice system that better reflected Canadian values. However, it was not until 1982, after a decade of study by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, that the federal government wrote a formal statement of criminal justice policy, which it hoped would act as a guide for the development of our criminal law. Released under the signature of then minister of justice and future prime minister Jean Chrétien, its major theme was simple: “[The] approach calls for restraint to be employed in the use of criminal law and the criminal justice system, on the basis of a conception of the criminal law as the ultimate point along the spectrum of society’s informal and formal methods of dealing with conduct…. In awarding sentences, preference should be given to the least restrictive alternative adequate and appropriate in the circumstances.”

Not surprisingly, the statement met with little criticism. Indeed, Globe and Mail columnist Michael Valpy complained that no serious person could disagree with it, because it contained nothing more than “a discussion of only very broad notions about crime and society and a set of principles which fall into the region of motherhood.”

The Liberals lost power to the Conservatives in 1984, and in 1988, just before the end of Brian Mulroney’s first term, a parliamentary committee released a 300-page report that endorsed many of the views expressed in the Liberal statement six years earlier. The 1988 committee was dominated by the majority Conservatives and chaired by Conservative MP David Daubney. Conservative MP Bill Domm, who had spearheaded the attempt to restore capital punishment in 1987, was a committee member. Rob Nicholson, who nineteen years later would be appointed Stephen Harper’s second minister of justice, served as vice-chair. Its conclusion differed little from that of the Liberals. “Carceral sentences,” it said, “should be used with restraint; there must be a greater use of community alternatives to incarceration where appropriate, particularly in cases not involving violence or recidivism.”

A year later and now in its second term, the Conservative government reprinted and re-released the Liberals’ 1982 report, the one Valpy had characterized as “motherhood,” making no changes other than to remove the page with Jean Chrétien’s signature. In the 1980s, apparently, Liberals and Conservatives shared the same criminal justice mother.

In 1990, the Conservative government issued a comprehensive plan for sentencing and corrections, under the signatures of Solicitor General Pierre Cadieux; and Attorney General, minister of justice, and future Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell. Once again, its policy statements were broadly indistinguishable from the previous Liberal recommendations. Indeed, the report on sentencing—described as “the thinking of the federal government about this very complex issue”— explicitly endorsed the 1982 policy statement, concluding that imprisonment should only be used to protect the public from violence, when a non-custodial sentence could not be devised that would reflect the seriousness of the case, or if an offender refused to comply with a non-prison sentence. The proposals on corrections reflected the single most important fact about prisons, namely that most inmates will return to live in our communities: “The fundamental purpose of the correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the safe custody and control of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.”

From the 1960s until the early 1990s, then, Liberals and Conservatives agreed that the criminal justice system was designed to respond to crime, and to determine who should be held accountable and how they should be punished. They also agreed that it has almost no effect in controlling crime rates, which are largely a function of social policies and other factors outside the control of the justice system. Even in the face of rising incarceration, successive Liberal and Conservative governments stayed the course. Imprisonment statistics had remained relatively stable until 1972, when they began moving slowly upward—from eighty-two adult inmates per 100,000 Canadian residents that year to 114 in 1996. But the increase was modest, compared with that in the United States, where the 1996 rate (618 inmates per 100,000 residents) was approximately four times the number for 1972. And because neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives favoured more imprisonment, Canada’s response to its growing prison population was to set up a federal-provincial-territorial task force to make recommendations on how to curtail it. These were endorsed, in 1996, by all governments, including those of Conservative premiers Mike Harris in Ontario and Ralph Klein in Alberta.

T his is not to say that governments always acted with restraint. In 1994, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government introduced a comprehensive sentencing bill, which yet again proposed that imprisonment should be employed sparingly. Before the bill passed, however, the government introduced the largest set of mandatory minimum penalties in Canadian history: mandatory minimum sentences of four years in prison were inserted into the Criminal Code for ten different violent offences carried out with firearms. The government also made it more difficult for those convicted of murder to get parole. Both of these changes broke with the past, and both were politically motivated. The mandatory minimums were part of the contentious, and now dead, long-gun registry bill, and were apparently designed to make firearm registration more palatable. The changes to parole eligibility were a response to victims’ demands, and serial murderer Clifford Olson’s attempt to obtain an early parole hearing. This was the onset of “tough on offender” politics in federal criminal justice policy, although the amendments were seen as the exception rather than the rule. And this same Liberal government introduced legislation in 1999 that, when it became law in 2003, significantly reduced youth incarceration.

The election of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives in 2006 dramatically changed the focus of criminal justice policy in Canada. Suddenly, harsher punishment became the preferred solution to crime, which had been declining for about fifteen years. New mandatory minimum sentences were created, others were lengthened, and the use of certain non-prison sanctions was restricted. There are two explanations for the government’s desire to make the criminal justice system more punitive. The first is obvious: “tough on offenders” bills seem popular, and they constitute an easy sell to the government’s conservative base. The second is improbable: that the government actually believes the best way to reduce crime is to increase punishments.

Imprisoning a few thousand more people may prevent the few street crimes they might have committed had they not been incarcerated, but what about the impact of imprisonment on the chances of their reoffending after release? The data comparing recidivism rates for former inmates with those for offenders given non-prison punishments demonstrates conclusively that incarceration does not decrease reoffending. In fact, for some offenders—notably those sent to prison for the first time—it may increase it. Averting a few crimes while convicts serve their sentences in prison doesn’t help if more crimes are committed when they are released.

But this is not about policy; it’s about politics. Advocating for “tough on offenders” bills makes for good bumper stickers and sound bites, even if it violates one of the government’s economic principles: that public money should not be spent on programs that do not advance its stated goals. Keeping a single inmate in federal penitentiary costs about $117,000 per year; a provincial inmate about $58,000. Money spent on incarceration is money not spent on services (the police, education, public health, and so on) that the evidence suggests would be more effective at reducing crime.

What is at stake, however, is much more important than imprisonment rates. Between 2006 and 2011, when it achieved a majority, the Harper government introduced an incoherent torrent of sixty-one separate criminal justice bills, a virtual tsunami of punishment. While many of these bills never became law, they imposed a view of offenders that constitutes a fundamental break with the country’s past. To focus solely on the fact that the government made some penalties harsher is to miss the point: it wants to change the way Canadians view wrongdoers. In the government’s eyes, the world is simple: there are “bad” people (those who have broken the law), and there are “good” people (everyone else).

Unfortunately, this view ignores estimates that about a quarter of a million Canadians are found guilty of criminal offences each year. At least 2.4 million have criminal records. Studies show that most youths commit some kind of offence, and that many adults have driven while legally impaired or have smoked marijuana. Some 20 percent of Ontario taxpayers admit to having committed the offence of tax evasion, either by knowingly not reporting income, or by claiming business expenses they know not to be legitimate. Committing crime, then, is not an exceptional activity, and policies based on the notion that “once a criminal, always a criminal” reflect a fundamental misunderstanding.

S ince 1970, Canadians convicted of most criminal offences have been eligible to apply for pardons. The theory is simple: people make mistakes and should not be required, after years or decades of living crime-free, to pay a price for what may have been a youthful indiscretion. Why, for instance, should former offenders, having been punished and gone on to become good citizens, be denied access to certain jobs? “Forever” rules are inherently blunt and unfair. A pardon allows people to go about their lives without the burden of a criminal past, to give them an opportunity to get out from under the shadow of their mistakes. Research shows that after a few years without committing a crime, former offenders are no more likely to do so than those in the general population. To put it another way, people do change.

It might have made sense to look at pardons in light of what is now known about offending patterns and the successes and failures of previous legislation. Instead, the Harper government simply imposed its “tough on offenders” agenda, starting with the word “pardon” itself. The government prefers the term “record suspension,” which sends the message that anyone who once committed a criminal act will never again be a full member of Canadian society. In December 2010, it raised the pardon application fee from $50 to $150. Then, two months later, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced that he would raise it again, this time to $631, saying, “We believe that ordinary Canadians shouldn’t have to be footing the bill for a criminal asking for a pardon.” The contrast is telling: ordinary Canadians versus criminals.

Since 1908, Canada has ensured the anonymity of almost all youths who come in contact with the criminal justice system. It does this for a simple, empirically sound, reason: it has not wanted them to be forever labelled as criminals for mistakes they made as youths. This, too, the Harper government has undone: its 2011 omnibus crime bill gives judges the power to permit the publication of the names of youths who commit any violent offence, including minor assaults, thus ensuring that they will forever be identified as “bad.” Is it in the public interest to make known the identity of someone who does something stupid when he or she is fifteen? Not really; one reason we have a separate youth justice system is that we understand that criminal behaviour is something young offenders will likely outgrow.

The government is also making it more difficult for those convicted of criminal offences abroad to serve their prison sentences in Canada. Canadians incarcerated in another country are typically deported back to Canada at the end of their sentences, having been denied access to rehabilitation programs in the foreign country (most often the US). An alternative is a program that has existed since 1978, which allows Canadians who offend abroad to serve their sentences in Canadian penitentiaries, where they have access to rehabilitation programs, and are closer to family and friends who can help them reintegrate into society. And when they are released, conditions can be placed on them to ensure that they become law-abiding citizens. The Harper government has changed the law to enable the public safety minister to block prisoner transfers more easily, presumably to keep these “bad” people out of the country for as long as possible. The irony is that after serving their sentences abroad, they are usually deported to Canada, to live in communities without the support or supervision they would receive after being released from a Canadian penitentiary. Thus, over the long term, the change in the law may increase the chances that a Canadian convicted elsewhere will reoffend in Canada.

When people are convicted of murder in Canada, they are automatically sentenced to life in prison. After twenty-five years, a person convicted of first-degree murder can apply for parole. A conviction for second-degree murder also results in an automatic life sentence, but these offenders must wait at least ten years—and up to twenty-five if the judge so orders—before they can apply for parole. If paroled, the offender lives forever under conditions set by the Parole Board of Canada, the breaking of any one of which can result in a return to penitentiary. In 1976, when capital punishment was abolished, there was concern that the upper end of this parole ineligibility period would discourage all hope of reintegration as a law-abiding citizen. The so-called faint hope clause allowed a jury of twelve ordinary citizens to reduce the ineligibility period to fifteen years or more for some inmates serving life sentences for murder—those whom the jury unanimously deemed safe and deserving. The parole board would still have the prerogative to decide whether or not to release them.

Pursuing their “tough on offenders” agenda, the Conservatives abolished the faint hope clause in 2011. But to what end? In the past five years, an average of 4.8 people a year were released under the provision. In 2010–11, there were two. Why would the government be concerned with the release of four or five prisoners a year, when in 2010 1,556 people serving life sentences were living in our communities under controls imposed by parole? The majority of these did not benefit from the faint hope clause.

The government’s decision to abolish the faint hope clause cannot be justified in terms of public safety. Almost all of the living offenders released by way of the faint hope provision are living peacefully in our midst. And it can’t be justified in terms of public acceptability, since each release had to be approved by a jury of ordinary people chosen from the community, and by a parole board. Clearly, the government wanted to extinguish hope, however faint. In that, it no doubt succeeded.

B efore 2006, Canadian governments understood that when people who do bad things are held accountable, they often become trusted members of society. For over half a century, Liberal and Conservative governments saw it as their role to bring offenders back into society. For generations, Canadians have understood that legal condemnation is a necessary but terrible instrument, to be used sparingly, not wantonly. All of this the Harper government has rejected, in a calculated attempt to change the way Canadians see one another. At some point in our lives, most of us have done things we’re not proud of. But if offenders are, as the government sees them, fundamentally bad and incapable of change, then they should be forever excluded. They are not like the rest of us. They are the enemy.

Looking back, it becomes clear how profound these changes truly are. In 1971, Solicitor General Jean-Pierre Goyer, a Liberal, made a statement in the House of Commons about the need to reform how Canada runs its penitentiaries. “For too long a time now,” he said, “our punishment-oriented society has cultivated the state of mind that demands that offenders, whatever their age and whatever the offence, be placed behind bars. Even nowadays, too many Canadians object to looking at offenders as members of our society, and seem to disregard the fact that the correctional process aims at making the offender a useful and law-abiding citizen, and not anymore an individual alienated from society and in conflict with it…. We will undoubtedly have to keep protecting society against dangerous criminals, but we will also take into consideration the fact that most inmates do not belong to such a category…. [An] inmate is always a citizen who, sooner or later, will return to a normal life in our society, and as such is basically entitled to have his human dignity, of course, but also his rights as a citizen respected by us to the largest possible extent.”

The Conservative justice critic at the time, Alberta MP Eldon Woolliams, had no trouble with Goyer’s admonition. Indeed, he agreed with the Liberal minister’s statement, saying that he wanted “to congratulate the minister for realizing at last that crime is not just a sordid happening but rather a result of human behaviour brought about by our economic and social conditions which we have failed to change…. We are dealing with a matter which is above politics.” He concluded his response to the Liberal policy statement by saying he hoped the Solicitor General would “translate his words into action in order to relieve the terrible frustrations of the convicted and to change our prisons from factories of crime to factories of rehabilitation and prevention of crime.”

More than forty years after Goyer, a Liberal, and Woolliams, a Conservative, stated these core values, the Harper government is trying to change them. This raises the question: if Canada’s reasonable and humane crime policies have historically been representative of Canadian values, then whose values does the Harper government believe it represents? Apparently, only its own.

This appeared in the September 2012 issue.

Kraft Dinner Is Canada’s True National Dish

September 12, 2012 October 3, 2023

The Ace Age

September 12, 2012 April 14, 2020

Captured Canadian troops are marched through the streets of Dieppe, following Operation Jubilee

Deconstructing Dieppe

September 12, 2012 October 1, 2018

The Walrus uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences.

Before you go, did you know that The Walrus is a registered charity? We rely on donations and support from readers like you to keep our journalism independent and freely available online.

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Published: 14 March 2009
Volume 15 , pages 7–24, ( 2009 )

Cite this article

Shadd Maruna 1 &
Anna King 2

18k Accesses

136 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for “belief in redeemability” (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Does Attitude Toward Offending Play a Role in a Person’s Compliance with the Law? Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Perceived Wrongfulness of Offending Behavior

Honour-Related Beliefs and Risk of Harm: Theory and Challenges for Policing

Revising the Critical Gaze: An Inversion of Criminological Theories to Center Race, Racism, and Resistance

See Krosnick et al. ( 2002 ) on the advantages of leaving out a “no opinion” option in public opinion survey research.

Four items were constructed so that disagreement would indicate punitiveness. Psychometric research has shown that people are more likely to agree with positively stated items. Items to be reverse coded [indicated by “R”], therefore, are included in each scale to control for such potential bias.

Allen, R. (2002). What do the public really feel about non-custodial penalties? London: Esmee Fairbairn Foundation.

Google Scholar

Allen, R., & Hough, M. (2007). Community penalties, sentencers, the media and public opinion. In L. Gelsthorpre, & R. Morgan (Eds.), Handbook on probation (pp. 565–601). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.

Adams, R. E., & Serpe, R. T. (2000). Social integration, fear of crime, and life satisfaction. Sociological Perspectives , 43 (4), 605.

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment: the continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal , 77 , 237–258.

Article Google Scholar

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Vander Ven, T. (2000). Forgiveness and fundamentalism: reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology , 38 , 719–753.

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice , 30 (2), 89–100.

Baron, S., & Hartnagel, T. (1996). Lock ‘em up”: attitudes toward punishing juvenile offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology , 38 (2), 191–212.

Betancourt, H., & Blair, I. (1992). A cognition (attribution)-emotion model of violence in conflict situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 18 (3), 343–350.

Bottoms, A. (1995). The politics of sentencing reform. The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. C. Clarkson and R. Morgan pp. 17–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brickman, P. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist , 37 (4), 368–384.

Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 62 , 595–602.

Carroll, J. S., Perkowitz, W. T., Lurigo, A. J., & Weaver, F. M. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 52 , 107–118.

Chiricos, T., Welch, K., & Geitz, M. (2004). Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology , 42 , 359–389.

Chiu, C.-y., C. S. Dweck, Fu. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (5), 923–940.

Cullen, F. T., Golden, K. M., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Is child saving dead? Juvenile rehabilitation in Illinois. Journal of Criminal Justice , 11 , 1–13.

Cullen, F., Clark, G., Cullen, J., & Mathers, R. (1985). Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 12 , 305–331.

Cullen, F. T., Skovron, S. E., Scott, J. E., & Burton Jr., V. S. (1990). Public support for correctional treatment: the tenacity of rehabilitative ideology. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 17 , 6–18.

Darley, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1982). Making moral judgments. American Scientist , 70 , 515–522.

Davis, T. L., Severy, L. J., Kraus, S. J., & Whitaker, J. M. (1993). Predictors of sentencing decisions: the beliefs, personality variables, and demographic factors of juvenile justice personnel. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 23 , 451–477.

Demski, R. M., & McGlynn, R. P. (1999). Fear or moral indignation? Predicting attitudes toward parolees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 29 (10), 2024–2058.

Duffee, D., & Ritti, R. R. (1977). Correctional policy and public values. Criminology , 14 (4), 449–459.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, El. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review , 95 (22), 256–273.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: a world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry , 6 , 267–285.

Evans, T. D., & Adams, M. (2003). Religion and punitive correctional attitudes. Journal of Crime and Justice , 28 (1).

Ellsworth, P. C., & Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans’ views on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues , 50 (2), 19–52.

Flanagan, T. (1996). Reform or punish: Americans’ views on the correctional system. In T. Flanagan, & D. R. Longmire (Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fletcher, J. F. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality . Westminster John Knox Publishers, 176 pp.

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gault, B. A., & Sabini, J. (2000). The roles of empathy, anger, and gender in predicting attitudes toward punitive, reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition and Emotion , 14 (4), 495–520.

Giacopassi, D. J. & Blankenship, M. B. (1991) The effects of criminal justice pedagogy on student attitudes. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 16 , 97–103.

Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression among African-American and Latino young adolescents. Developmental Psychology , 28 , 731–740.

Graham, S., Weiner, B., et al. (1997). An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O.J. Simpson. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 (1), 33.

Grasmick, H., & McGill, A. (1994). Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders. Criminology , 32 , 23–46.

Haghighi, B., & Lopez, A. (1998). Gender and perception of prisons and prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice , 26 (6), 453–464.

Hawkins, D. F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior , 2 , 207–230.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . New York: Wiley.

Book Google Scholar

Helfgott, J. (1997). Ex-offender needs versus community opportunity in Seattle, Washington. Federal Probation , 61 , 12–24.

Hirschfield, A., & Piquero, A. (2008). Normalization and deligitimation: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders. Unpublished paper.

Hogan, M., Chiricos, T. & Gertz, M. (2005). Economic insecurity, blame, and punitive attitudes. Justice Quarterly , 22 , 392–412.

Hogarth, J. (1971). Sentencing as a human process . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Homant, R. J., & Kennedy, D. B. (1982). Attitudes toward ex-offenders: a comparison of social stigmas. Journal of Criminal Justice , 10 (5), 383–391.

Hough, M., & Roberts, J. (1998). Attitudes to crime and punishment: findings from the 1996 British Crime Survey, Research Findings, No.64. London, Home Office, Development and Statistics Directorate: 1–4.

Hough, M., & Roberts, J. (2002). Public knowledge and public opinion of sentencing. In Sentencing and Society: International Perspectives . (Eds.), Cyrus Tata and Neil Hutton, Aldershot Hamshire: Ashgate Publishing.

Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1997). Public perceptions of race and crime: the role of racial stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science , 41 , 375–402.

Jayewardene, C. H. S., Lang, S. & Gainer, C. (1977) Changing attitudes to the criminal justice system through formal education. Crime and Justice , 5 , 126–130.

Jacobs, D., & Carmichael, J. T. (2002). The political sociology of the death penalty: a pooled time-series analysis. American Sociological Review , 67 , 109–131.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 2, (pp. 219–266)). New York: Academic Press.

Chapter Google Scholar

Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior . New York: General Learning Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, (Ed.), D. Levine, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

King, A. (2008). Keeping a safe distance: individualism and the less punitive public. British Journal of Criminology , 48 , 190–208.

King, R. D., & Wheelock, D. (2007). Group threat and social control: race, perceptions of minorities and the desire to punish. Social Forces , 85 (3), 1255–1280.

King, A., & Maruna, S. (2008). ‘Is a conservative just a liberal who has been mugged?: Exploring the origins of punitive views.’ Punishment and Society (forthcoming)

Kjelsberg, E., Skoglund, T. H., & Rustad, A.-B. (2007). Attitudes toward prisoners, as reported by prison inmates, prison employees and college students. BMC Public Health , 7 , 71–80.

Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., Berent, M. K., Carson, R. T., Hanemann, W. M., Kopp, R. J., et al. (2002). The impact of "no opinion" response options on data quality: non attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opinion Quarterly , 66 , 371–403.

Langworthy, R. H., & Whitehead, J. T. (1986). Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology , 24 , 575–591.

Lerner, J., Goldberg, J., & Tetlock, P. (1998). Sober second thought: the effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 , 563–574.

Lieber, M. J., & Woodrick, A. C. (1997). Religious beliefs, attributional styles, and adherence to correctional orientation. Criminal Justice & Behavior , 24 , 495–511.

Lurigio, A. J., Carroll, J. S., & Stalans, L. J. (1994). Understanding judges’ sentencing decisions: Attributions of responsibility and story construction. In L. Heath, et al. (Ed.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 91–115). New York: Plenum.

Maruna, S., & King, A. (2004). Public opinion and community penalties. In A. Bottoms, S. Rex, & G. Robinson (Eds.), Alternatives to prison: Options for an insecure society (pp. 83–112). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Martinson, J., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000a). Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Research Findings No 111.

Mattinson, J., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000b). Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey, Research Studies, No. 200. London, HMSO: 122.

Mayhew, P. & Van Kesteren, J. (2002) Cross-national attitudes to punishment, pp. 63–92 in Changing attitudes to punishment: public opinion, crime and justice , edited by M. Hough. Collumpton, Devon: Willan Publishing.

McCorkle, R. C. (1993). Research Note: punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime & Delinquency , 39 (2), 240–252.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993), Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review , 100 (4), 674–701.

Nettler, G. (1959). Cruelty, dignity, and determinism. American Sociological Review , 24 , 375–384.

Pellegrini, R. J., Queirolo, S. S., Monarrez, V. E., & Valenzuela, D. M. (1997). Political identification and perceptions of homelessness: Attributed causality and attitudes on public policy. Psychological Reports , 80 , 1139–1148.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist , 55 , 44–55.

Quigley, B., & Tedeschi, J. (1996). Mediating effects of blame attributions on feelings of anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 22 , 1280–1288.

Roberts, J., & Hough, M. (2002). Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion, crime and justice . Cullompton, UK: Willan.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs , 80 .

Sasson, T. (1995). Crime talk: how citizens construct a social problem . NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Scheingold, S. A. (1984). The politics of law and order: Street crime and public policy . New York, NY: Longman.

Schwartz, I. M. (1992). Combatting juvenile crime: What the public really wants . Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Youth Policy, University of Michigan.

Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). The limited effect of economic self-interest on the political attitudes of the mass public. Journal of Behavioral Economics , 19 (3), 247–271.

Shaver, K. G. (1975). An introduction to attribution processes . Cambridge. Mass: Winthrop.

Shaw, M. E., & Sulzer, J. L. (1964). An empirical test of Heider’s levels in attribution of responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 69 , 39–46.

Sims, B. (2003). The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: a national study. Criminal Justice Review , 28 , 1–25.

Stack, S. (2003). Authoritarianism and support for the death penalty: a multivariate analysis. Sociological Focus , 36 , 333–352.

Steffensmeier, D. J., & Kramer, J. H. (1980). The differential impact of criminal stigmatization on male and female felons. Sex Roles , 6 (1), 1–8.

Stinchcombe, A., Adams, R., Heimer, C., Scheppele, K. L., Smith, T., & Taylor, D. G. (1980). Crime and punishment . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 , 588–597.

Stroessner, S. J., & Green, C. W. (1990). Effects of belief in free will or determinism on attitudes toward punishment and locus of control. Journal of Social Psychology , 130 , 789–799.

Struthers, C. W., & Perry, R. P. (1996). Attributional style, attributional retraining, and inoculation against motivational deficits. Social Psychology of Education , 1 , 171–187.

Taylor, D. G., Scheppele, K. L., & Stinchcombe, A. L. (1979). Salience of crime and support for harsher criminal sanctions. Social Problems , 26 (4), 413.

Templeton, L. J. & T. F. Hartnagel (2008). Causal attributions of crime and the public’s punishment goals. Unpublished paper.

Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review , 31 , 237–265.

Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2007). A liberal is someone who has not been mugged: criminal victimization and political beliefs. Justice Quarterly , 24 (2), 309–334.

Van Overwalle, F., Segebarth, K., & Goldchstein, M. (1989). Improving performance of freshmen through attributional testimonies from fellow students. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 59 , 75–85.

Wood, J., & Viki, G. T. (2004). Public attitudes towards crime and punishment. In J. Adler (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Debates, concepts and practice . Cullompton, UK: Willan.

Viney, W., Waldman, D., & Barchilon, J. (1982). Attitudes toward punishment in relation to belief in free will and determinism. Human Relations , 35 , 939–949.

von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and Sanctions . NY, Oxford: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

Walker, N., Hough M., & Lewis H. (1988). Tolerance of leniency and severity. Tolerance of Leniency and Severity in England and Wales. In Public Attitudes to Sentencing. (Eds.), Nigel Walker and Mike Hough, Avebury Publishing Co., pp. 178–202.

Warr, M. (1980). The accuracy of public beliefs about crime. Social Forces , 59 (2), 456.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review , 92 , 548–573.

Weiner, B., & S. Graham (1999). Attribution in personality psychology. Handbook of personality: theory and research . L. A. Pervin and O. P. John. NY/ London: The Guilford Press: 738.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1982). Improving the performance of college freshmen: attributional theory revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 42 , 367–376.

Wilson, T. D., & Linville, P. W. (1985). Improving the performance of college freshmen with attributional techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 49 , 287–293.

Young, R. L. (1991). Race, conceptions of crime and justice, and support for the death penalty. Social Psychology Quarterly , 54 , 67–75.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, 28 University Square, Belfast, BT7 1NN, United Kingdom

Shadd Maruna

Rutgers’s University, New Brunswick, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shadd Maruna .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Maruna, S., King, A. Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes. Eur J Crim Policy Res 15 , 7–24 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1

Download citation

Published : 14 March 2009

Issue Date : June 2009

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Attribution theory
Public opinion
Punitiveness
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Once a criminal, always a criminal: 'redeemability' and the psychology of punitive public attitudes, additional details, no download available, availability, related topics.

Band 7+: Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement? Provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

The statement “once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal” has been a subject of debate for a long time. Some people believe that once a person has committed a crime, he will continue to do so in the future, regardless of rehabilitation and reform programs. However, I believe that this statement is not entirely true, and there are several reasons why I hold this opinion.

Firstly, it is essential to understand that people commit crimes for various reasons. For instance, some individuals may engage in criminal activities due to peer pressure, emotional distress, poverty, addiction, and lack of education or employment opportunities. Therefore, it is not fair to assume that someone will always be a criminal if they have committed a crime in the past. In many cases, people engage in illegal activities as a result of their circumstances, and once they change, they may not see a reason to continue with their criminal behavior.

Secondly, there are numerous cases of individuals who have transformed their lives after spending time in prison or undergoing rehabilitation programs. These people are proof that humans are capable of change, and it is wrong to write someone off as a criminal for the rest of their lives. For instance, a former drug addict who has undergone rehab and is now clean and leading a productive life is a living testament that people can change.

Thirdly, the legal system has a significant role to play in reducing recidivism rates. It is not enough to punish someone for their crime and release them back into society without equipping them with adequate skills, education, and rehabilitation programs. The prison system should focus more on rehabilitation and less on punishment. By providing inmates with skills and education, they can have better chances of finding employment once they are released and avoid a life of crime.

In conclusion, the idea that a person who has committed a crime will always be a criminal is not entirely true. People engage in criminal activities for various reasons, and it is unfair to assume that they will continue to do so in the future. With adequate support, rehabilitation, and reform programs, individuals can turn their lives around and lead productive lives. The legal system should focus more on rehabilitating offenders rather than punishing them to reduce recidivism rates.

Check Your Own Essay On This Topic?

Generate a band-9 sample with your idea, overall band score, task response, coherence & cohesion, lexical resource, grammatical range & accuracy, essays on the same topic:, some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. do you agree with this statement provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion..

There is an opinion that if a person commits a crime one day, he will always tend to do the same. Personally, I agree with this statement, because a conscious illegal act requires not only specific skills, but also a great will to do that and a moral compromise. Moreover, criminals often lose some social […]

The noise level around us is constantly increasing and affecting the quality of our lives. What causes the noise? What should be done about it?

We are living in the industry 4.0 in this technological era there are many products are produce sound and that sound affecting the quality of our lives. It is directly affects metal health of the living begin. For avoid such type of affects all can have to start avoiding using that products. In our surroundings […]

Some think most crime is the result of circumstances e.g. poverty and other social problems. Others believe that most crime is caused by people who are bad by nature. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is usually contented that different types of crimes are caused with two reasons. Someone asserts that the world problems like poverty or other social issues provoke people to conduct violation. Others argue that personal nature affects their illegal acts. However, there are numerous of perspectives on the presented statements. The grave argument that can […]

As a result of growth in some urban centers, the environment in those cities is deteriorating. How could this issue be tackled by both the government and individuals?

In today’s world, environmental issues have become a widely-discussed topic, especially in urban areas where developments and human activities have been impacting nature. These problems need to be solved or they will get worse in the next future. Therefore the government and people, together can take place to overcome the environmental problems with some solutions […]

Many crimes are often related to the consumption of alcohol or drugs. Do you think that the legalization of these substances would increase or decrease the crime rate??

There is a widespread belief that crime often involves the use of illegal substances and those with high alcohol content. From my perspective, I completely agree that legalization would decrease the offense rate for the following reasons: Firstly, if the government legalizes the use of drugs and alcohol, it will better control felony rates. Crimes […]

These days, people work in more than one job, and often change career several times during their life. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

In recent times, working in a variety of occupations and frequently changing career path have become prevalent among people. The reason for that is feeling dissatisfaction of what they are doing or not having a high enough salary. There might be both cons and pros that should be considered before being willing to work. Let’s […]

Plans & Pricing

Help & FAQ

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

School of Law

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1

Fingerprint

Crime Social Sciences 100%
Attitudes Social Sciences 100%
Psychology Social Sciences 100%
Belief Social Sciences 50%
Analysis Social Sciences 33%
Theory Social Sciences 33%
Behavior Psychology 33%
Research Psychology 33%

Promoting 'Good Lives': A New Framework for Offender Rehabilitation

Shadd Maruna (Participant)

Impact : Societial Impact

T1 - Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

AU - Maruna, Shadd

N2 - Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for “belief in redeemability” (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.

AB - Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for “belief in redeemability” (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.

U2 - 10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1

DO - 10.1007/s10610-008-9088-1

M3 - Article

SN - 1572-9869

JO - European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

JF - European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

Listening Tests
Academic Tests
General Tests
IELTS Writing Checker
IELTS Writing Samples
Speaking Club
IELTS AI Speaking Test Simulator
Latest Topics
Vocabularying
2024 © IELTS 69

Once a person become a criminal, he will always be a criminal. agree or disagree

IELTS essay Once a person become a criminal, he will always be a criminal. agree or disagree

Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
? One main idea per paragraph
Include an introduction and conclusion
Support main points with an explanation and then an example
Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
Check your writing for errors
Answer all parts of the question
? Present relevant ideas
Fully explain these ideas
Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
? Currently is not available
Meet the criteria
Doesn't meet the criteria
5.5 band Experiencing the development of the night-economy in several countries. Experiencing the development of the night-economy in several countries. In order to pave the way for the night time economy in VietNam developing, it is essential to study the reality and policies on developing night economic activities in some countries. At the forefront of nighttime economic deve ...
5 band why the family important ? family plays a crucial role in one's life. personally speaking, my family is one off the treasures that I own. First, family is a place where you love me unconditionally. No matter what situation I am in, rich, poor, ugly or beautiful, they always respect and love me. Second, tobe willing to listen ...
A foreign language is like a frail, delicate muscle. If you do not use it, it weakens. Jhumpa Lahiri
5 band Write a paragraph (120-150 words) about your hometown/home city or the city you are living now Writing of the green hills in the North of Vietnam, everyone knows that the land is called Thai Nguyen, this is where I was born and raised. Here, people live by many different occupations: farming, growing tea, raising livestock and poultry. Beside, you don’t need to worry too much about food and l ...
5 band Being a celebrity bring benifit or doubt In this contemporary era every one becomes a celebrity or well know sports person because this status gives you respect in the society. in my point of view being a well known person has own benefit and doubt. This will present certain facts and example to support my view point before coming to the a ...
He who knows no foreign languages knows nothing of his own. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
5.5 band Parents need to do more to protect children from cyberbullying. In this technological advanced world, a complex issue have been surfaced when the topic of parenting a child is debated. Some may conceive the notion that, parents play a pivotal role in shielding their adolescent from online harassment. If pondered, I bolster the above agrument to a larger entent. ...
5.5 band Some students work part-time. Do the advantages of this outweigh disadvantages? Nowadays a majority of students tries to find a part-time job, based on their speciality or not. There are two contrast opinion connected with this issue: some people suppose it is necessary to employ to become independent while others are sure that combining education and working influences both ac ...
The conquest of learning is achieved through the knowledge of languages. Roger Bacon

Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal he will always be a criminal Do you agree with this statement

Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement.

Nowadays, there are plenty of reason that people are choose to criminal than peaceful life. I totally disagree with this statement owing to every person think not similar, with they well known that criminal life very dangerous as compare to descent. On the one hand, there are numerous stunning cause that why people not again to doing crime. Firstly, in today era governments made a strictly some rules and regulations which are more effective against criminals and inhabitants well known if they by chance to doing crime then their remain completely life always feel guilty. Moreover, when a person went to jail then, there they always realize by own mistake and learn to truly life lesson, done to promised themselves that never repeat the crime. For instance, now in this era every persons seeks to respectful life neither they become famous as criminal and all society scared for this reason after from one mistake it is significantly that their family, friends and society to be it together and should encourage for better and healthy life. On the other hand, it is irrefutable that when individual face more poverty and compulsion in life then they step out take action to have a criminal life. Secondly, majority of culprit think that crime as profession and source of earn money and respect so for that they never left this bad job than they always work with bad company as team members. Their in this life very ordinary to steal like car, bike and other criminal activities. In conclusion, I believe that there are many advantages If people opt to better life than culprit such as gain fame and also family support, however, who people more prefer crime as profession then in life face more nuisances in daily routine.

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Transition Words or Phrases used: also, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, for instance, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech: To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK Auxiliary verbs: 1.0 7.85571142285 13% => OK Conjunction : 12.0 10.4138276553 115% => OK Relative clauses : 13.0 7.30460921844 178% => OK Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted Preposition: 36.0 41.998997996 86% => OK Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words: No of characters: 1440.0 1615.20841683 89% => OK No of words: 295.0 315.596192385 93% => More content wanted. Chars per words: 4.8813559322 5.12529762239 95% => OK Fourth root words length: 4.14434120667 4.20363070211 99% => OK Word Length SD: 2.34723183152 2.80592935109 84% => OK Unique words: 166.0 176.041082164 94% => More unique words wanted. Unique words percentage: 0.562711864407 0.561755894193 100% => OK syllable_count: 464.4 506.74238477 92% => OK avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by: Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK Subordination: 1.0 2.10420841683 48% => OK Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK

Performance on sentences: How many sentences: 10.0 16.0721442886 62% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long. Sentence length: 29.0 20.2975951904 143% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long. Sentence length SD: 67.3475315064 49.4020404114 136% => OK Chars per sentence: 144.0 106.682146367 135% => OK Words per sentence: 29.5 20.7667163134 142% => OK Discourse Markers: 13.4 7.06120827912 190% => OK Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.67935871743 46% => More positive sentences wanted. Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 3.9879759519 150% => OK Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted. What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion: Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151589136767 0.244688304435 62% => OK Sentence topic coherence: 0.0655597543714 0.084324248473 78% => OK Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0436857324529 0.0667982634062 65% => OK Paragraph topic coherence: 0.097941573779 0.151304729494 65% => OK Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0460274472513 0.056905535591 81% => OK

Essay readability: automated_readability_index: 16.3 13.0946893788 124% => OK flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 50.2224549098 84% => OK smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 11.3001002004 129% => OK coleman_liau_index: 11.62 12.4159519038 94% => OK dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.58950901804 93% => OK difficult_words: 54.0 78.4519038076 69% => More difficult words wanted. linsear_write_formula: 10.5 9.78957915832 107% => OK gunning_fog: 13.6 10.1190380762 134% => OK text_standard: 11.0 10.7795591182 102% => OK What are above readability scores?

--------------------- Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100 Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9 --------------------- Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.

Watch CBS News

Once a criminal, always a criminal?

By Stephanie Slifer

April 23, 2014 / 7:35 AM EDT / CBS News

About 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years, according to a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released Tuesday.

The report, entitled Recidivism of State Prisoners Released in 2005 , is based on a BJS data collection which tracked a sample of former prison inmates from 30 states for five years following their release in 2005.

According to the report, prisoners released after serving time for a property offense were the most likely to recidivate, or relapse into crime. The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults.

Within five years of release, 82 percent of property offenders were arrested for a new crime, compared to 77 percent of drug offenders, 74 percent of public order offenders and 71 percent of violent offenders, the report found.

Public order offenses include weapons offenses, driving under the influence and other miscellaneous or unspecified crimes..

Regardless of the initial incarceration offense, the majority, 58 percent, of released prisoners were arrested for a public order offense within five years of release . An estimated 39 percent of released prisoners were arrested within five years for a drug offense, 38 percent for a property offense and 29 percent for a violent offense.

Matt Durose, a statistician for the Bureau of Justice, told CBS News' Crimesider that the report "will provide a lot of information for policy makers on the official recognized behavior of released prisoners."

"When we've put these reports out in the past, different states have looked to the BJS report as a way to compare the recidivism rates within their states to a larger group of states."

Award-winning journalist Nancy Mullane studied recidivism rates, specifically among murderers, for her book, "Life after Murder." In it, she profiled five murderers who served 20 or more years before they were released after convincing a parole board that they were worthy of another chance.

"We just send them to prison and never hear about them again. I became really fascinated with who these men were. Are they really 'once a murderer, always a murderer?,'" Mullane asked in an interview with Crimesider late last month.

Mullane said her research has taught her that there are some convicted killers who "are back out in society and have so much to teach us about rehabilitation, redemption and about really screwing up in your life - massively - and then what it takes to come back, what it takes to be a person again and give back to society."

"People can change," she said.

Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined.

"There's a huge disconnect in our sentencing laws," Mullane continued. "There's a higher recidivism rate among non-violent offenders."

The BJS report did find that recidivism was higher among non-violent offenders, however, it also found that about 10 percent of convicted murderers released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested within 6 months, and about 48 percent were arrested within five years.

Out of all violent offenders released in 30 states in 2005, about 33 percent were arrested for another violent offense within five years of their release.

A BJS news release says its latest findings on recidivism cannot be directly compared to the bureau's previous study on prisoners released in 1994 in 15 states, because of changes in the demographic characteristics and criminal histories of the U.S. prison population, an increase in the number of states in the study, and improvements made to the quality and completeness of the nation's criminal history records since the mid-1990s.

Stephanie Slifer covers crime and justice for CBSNews.com.

More from CBS News

Why Log In?

All collections

Ciaravolo, Emily Beth (author) Hay, Carter (professor directing dissertation) Pasley, Kay (university representative) Siennick, Sonja (committee member) Stults, Brian (committee member) College of Criminology and Criminal Justice (degree granting department) Florida State University (degree granting institution)

Although labeling theory has been subjected to many empirical examinations, more often than not, studies present conflicting evidence or suffer from a variety of methodological limitations. In turn, the current analyses aim to contribute knowledge and clarity by evaluating the theory in a manner that addresses some of the limitations found in prior studies. Three key research questions will guide the current analyses. First, does the formal labeling process increase subsequent criminal behavior? Second, are there extra-legal factors that mediate or explain this effect? Finally, is the effect of formal labeling on future behavior moderated, or conditioned, by extra-legal factors? Taken together, an assessment of these research questions should allow for a more nuanced understanding of the harmful consequences associated with the formal labeling process.

Criminology

Labeling theory, adolescent, delinquent behavior

March 15, 2011.

A Dissertation submitted to the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Includes bibliographical references.

Carter Hay, Professor Directing Dissertation; Kay Pasley, University Representative; Sonja Siennick, Committee Member; Brian Stults, Committee Member.

Florida State University

FSU_migr_etd-3608

This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). The copyright in theses and dissertations completed at Florida State University is held by the students who author them.

http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/

In Collections

Theses and Dissertations

IELTS Books
Latest IELTS Listening
Latest IELTS Reading
Latest IELTS Speaking
Latest IELTS Writing
Speaking Part 1
Speaking Part 2
Speaking Part 3
Practice Tests
IELTS General

IELTS Band 8+ Vocabulary for Writing Task 2 – Topic: Crime & Punishment

Vocabulary is unquestionably important in IELTS Writing because it accounts up to 25% of your overall score. Therefore, you should place a strong focus on learning vocabulary to prepare better for the IELTS test. This post covers 3 parts:

Academic Words for IELTS Writing Task 2 – Topic: Crime & Punishment
Useful Collocations & Phrases for IELTS Writing – Topic: Crime & Punishment
IELTS Writing Task 2 Topic & Questions shared by IELTS test-takers from 2019 to 2021

TOPIC: CRIME & PUNISHMENT

1. useful academic words:.

abide (verb): accept and follow out abolish (verb): to put an end to something, such as a rule, or custom appreciate (verb): to recognize how good someone or something is and to be grateful for it arson (noun): the illegal use of fire to destroy a house, building, or property authority (noun): the police or people who has legal power to make people obey laws or rules bully (verb): to hurt or frighten someone who is weaker or smaller than you convict (verb): to decide officially in a law court that someone is guilty of a crime criminal (noun): someone who commits a crime combat (verb): to try to stop something bad, or harmful deterrent (noun): a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something deter (verb): to prevent or discourage someone from doing something enforce (verb): to make people obey a rule or law evil (adj): very unpleasant, morally bad, or cruel fine (noun): amount of money that has to be paid as a punishment for not obeying a rule or law fraud (noun): the crime of obtaining money from someone by tricking them imprisonment (noun): the situation of being in prison inequality (noun): a lack of equality or fair treatment in the sharing of wealth or opportunities intent (noun): the intention to do something intrusion (noun): something that interrupts a private event or a peaceful situation kidnap (noun): to take someone somewhere illegally by force, often in order to get money for returning them; ransom motive (noun): a reason for doing something pickpocketing (noun): the crime of stealing things out of people’s pockets or bags prosecutor (noun): a lawyer who proves in court that someone accused of a crime is guilty recklessness (noun): not thinking about the possible bad effects of your actions smuggling (noun): the crime of taking people or goods into or out of a country illegally the accused (noun): the person who is on trial in a law court vandalism (noun): the act of intentionally damaging things belonging to other people, especially public property violation (noun): an action that breaks a law, agreement, rule, etc. harsh (adj): unkind, unpleasant, cruel, or more severe than is necessary intentional (adj): deliberate, intended or planned; done on purpose law-abiding (adj): a law-abiding person is who obeys the law offensive (adj): very rude or insulting and likely to upset people petty (adj): not important and not worth giving attention to punishable ( adj): being punishable because someone does something illegal imprison (verb): to put someone in prison offend (verb): to make someone upset or angry perpetrate (verb): to do something that is illegal, harmful or dishonest resent (verb): be angry at something or someone because you have been hurt or treated unfairly

2. USEFUL COLLOCATIONS & PHRASES:

minor crime = lesser crime = petty crime major crime = serious crime break the law engage in criminal activity impose stricter punishments on… = impose heavier sentences on… carry out unlawful act receive capital punishment = receive the death penalty = receive a death sentence = face execution commit an offense receive prison sentences = be sent to prison = be put in prison face life imprisonment = serve a life sentence reoffend = commit crimes again = continue to commit crime after being punished go to jail = be put in jail/ prison = to be imprisoned prevent somebody from… = deter somebody from… pose a serious threat to society = threaten the safety of society = put society in danger juvenile crimes = juvenile delinquency = juvenile offending = youth crimes = crimes among young adults crime rates = crime levels urgent problem = pressing problem = grave problem be given the chance to… = be given the opportunity to… the increased use of drugs and alcohol = alcohol and drug abuse the major/primary/principal cause of… = the major/primary/principal reason for… turn to illegal acts to generate income = commit crimes to earn money raise awareness of crime prevention = promote crime prevention programs

3. Writing Task 2 Questions in 2021 – Topic: Crime & Punishment

Many offenders commit more crimes after serving the first punishment. Why is this happening, and what measures can be taken to tackle this problem?

Useful Vocabulary for IELTS Writing Task 1

Tips & advice for ielts writing task 2 agree or disagree questions, you may also like, ielts direct question essay model answer – topic:..., latest ielts actual tests worldwide in 2021 (updated..., ielts discussion essay model answer – topic: computer..., ielts opinion essay model answer – topic: televisions..., ielts opinion essay model answer – topic: school..., ielts opinion essay model answer – topic: creative..., ielts reason solution essay model answer 02 –..., ielts discussion essay model answer 16 – topic:..., opinion essay for ielts writing task 2 topic:..., leave a reply cancel reply.

About Author

Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement?

May 14, 2021 / General / 4:08 pm

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

MODEL ANSWER>>>

Often it is opined that once a criminal is born in a society, he would hardly change his attitude. Even though there are several instances when criminals pursue their status quo throughout their life, I think it does not imply to the major section of their group.

To begin, most people avoid situations which create crime and they dislike criminals. This mentality of the general public is reflected in their activities too, as evidenced by isolating the anti-social elements from the mainstream of the society. It is very hard for a person who has marked as a criminal to adjust with this situation. Often many become first-time convicts just because situations like ignorance of law and deception from trusted ones. Many among these have committed crimes unintentionally, and they usually become remorseful immediately after their action. They naturally want to reintegrate to their own communities as soon as possible, and the best way to do so is to abstain from illegal activities further. Therefore, a sane person would hardly reoffend the second time.

I should also acknowledge the situation in which people become addicted to criminal activities, once they are into these circumstances. Many first-time offenders are seen becoming more polished criminals after their stay in prisons and this usually becomes a threat to the social security. Another point to be noted is the increase in the number of cybercrimes, and these days more reoffending is seen in this field. This might be because of the lax cyber laws.

In summary, albeit there are instances when people turn out to be permanent criminals, I think the situation is different in case of the majority.

Word count: 274

About IELTS (3)
Academic Reading Tests (12)
Expected writing task 2: 2024 (23)
PTE WRITING ESSAY (1)
Cue Card (31)
Full Script (25)
General task 1 (6)
Task 2 Evaluation (7)
Uncategorized (3)
Vocabulary (38)
Task 1 (648)
Task 2 (285)
Expected task 2: 2022 (71)
Task 1 (374)
Task 2 (258)
Latest academic task 1 (41)
Recent IELTS writing task 2 questions (129)
Writing task 2 Strategies (7)

Connect With Us

| Developed and managed by zoompo.com

Living with a criminal record: When does the sentence end? | The Excerpt

On a special episode (first released on April 24, 2024) of The Excerpt podcast: If a person is convicted of a crime, they may be sentenced to prison. Upon release, technically, they're free again. The catch is that now they have a criminal record that will likely follow them everywhere they go. So, when does the sentence end? For most people, the answer is never. 70 million Americans have some sort of criminal record. Twelve states have recently passed laws allowing low-level convictions to be expunged from records if certain requirements are met. In recognition of Second Chance Month, we ask: should everyone get a chance at a clean slate? Sheena Meade, CEO of the Clean Slate Initiative, an organization working to get all 50 states to offer automatic record clearance, joins The Excerpt to discuss the ramifications of living with a criminal record.

Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.

Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here

Hello, and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, April 24th, 2024, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. If a person is convicted of a crime, they may be sentenced to prison. Upon release, technically, they're free again. The catch is that now they have a criminal record that will likely follow them everywhere they go. So, when does the sentence end? For most people, the answer is never. 70 million Americans have some sort of criminal record. 12 states have recently passed laws allowing low-level convictions to be expunged from records if certain requirements are met. In recognition of Second Chance Month we ask, should everyone get a chance at a clean slate? Our guest today is Sheena Meade, the CEO of the Clean Slate Initiative, an organization working to get all 50 states to offer automatic record clearance. Thanks for joining us, Sheena.

Thank you for having me, Dana.

So, why is this such a big deal? In what ways does someone's criminal record create obstacles for them?

Well, one, it's such a big deal because one in three Americans have an arrest or conviction on their record, and that's a lot of people. That's a lot of people from our communities, a lot of people in our faith community, our neighbors, our loved ones, and we know that if a person have an arrest or a conviction, it's harder to reintegrate back into society because over 94% of employers require background checks. You have over 72% of universities and colleges that also screen out applicants through background checks. Also, there are barriers with landlords. S,o usually when people are coming back home from prison or someone who has been arrested or have a conviction, you usually hear folks say, "Pull yourself up by the bootstraps. People should get back to work, go find housing, get an education", but they're met with all these barriers.

In most states, there is laws that says once you have done your time, you have remained crime-free for a certain period of time, you are eligible to get your record cleared, expunged, but it's so bureaucratic and is very cumbersome, and you have a lot of paperwork in some states. Sometimes you have to find an attorney and if your crime is being poor, you'll never be able to get your record cleared because you can't afford that. So, right now what the Clean Slate Initiative is, our mission is to automate record clearance. So, some of the hurdles that we see that people face in certain states, and I'll give you an example, like Louisiana, a person could be charged up to $500 per offense to try to get their offense off their record. We have states like in Missouri, where you could be eligible to get your record cleared. You could have remained crime-free for a certain period of time. You're eligible deemed by the state, but yet a judge may still hold discretion.

I would tell you Dana, a lot of people don't know once they had an offense and they paid their debt to society, they might not even know that their records going to hold them back from employment, housing, or even potentially getting a higher education. For my case in 2004, I found myself getting arrested in front of my children off a warrant for passing a worthless check. Now, Dana, that check was $87.26 cents that I wrote to the grocery store to get groceries for my family, for my children.

I thought that once I came out of jail and I paid the check off and I paid all the fees associated with it, that that was it. I could move on from that traumatic day that I got arrested in front of my children but yet, I start realizing that my record was a barrier years later as I'm applying for jobs. When I tried to go to work on my bachelor's degree at a university and I was met with the question, have you ever been arrested or convicted? Once I checked that box, I had a whole drop down of menu options with red letters in bold saying that I had to go pick up all this paperwork just to show the school that I was worthy of being able to enroll.

So, approximately how long after your conviction did it take for you to get your record cleared?

Dana, that is such a great question because it is 2024. It is 20 years from the time that I got arrested. Actually, next month will make it 20 years, and I still do not have a clean slate. About four years ago, my husband and my family, we was trying to look for a rental home, and this is after many accolades for the work that I have led that my husband has done also in the criminal justice space. He even got his own day in the county of Orange County, Florida but yet, when we went to go look for a rental property, we were getting denied because of technology. The application was shooting it back out because there was a blemish record there. So, I still don't have a clean slate, but I'm excited to say that the work that the Clean Slate Initiative that we're trying to get all 50 states on a pathway that will allow automatic record clearing for folks like myself and the millions of the other folks who have remained crime free, who wants to get back to work, who want to just contribute to their communities.

So, tell us about the states that do have an automatic record clearance program. Who's eligible, who isn't? What kind of clearance timeline are we talking about?

When you talk about timelines and who's eligible, it varies from state to state. I'll let you know, the first state that passed Clean Slate was Pennsylvania. To this date, millions of people's records have been able to have been cleared varying from low-level misdemeanors, even low-level felonies where people... We know that folks who have dealt with drug addictions, which is definitely a health issue, sometimes has found themselves to gather offenses during a time of addiction. We have a large recovery community who's ready to go to work, who wants to contribute back to society, and sometimes they're met with those barriers because of their record, but we've been able to see states like Pennsylvania, Utah, Oklahoma, Michigan removing some of those hurdles and obstacles because now, they're able to have their record cleared.

So, what's going on with the other states? Are you close in some? You mentioned Orange County, Florida. That's my county. I didn't realize we were in the same county. Have some states refused?

So, 12 states have passed Clean Slate across the country, which is really exciting. We say, "Have some states refused?" No. We have states reaching out every day saying, "How do we bring Clean Slate to our state? How do we pass this policy?" So, we don't see states where folks are refusing. There's a lot of bipartisan support across the aisle for this issue. It's a very commonsense policy. This policy is not a red or blue or purple policy, it's the people's policy. It's people over politics.

Again, when you have one in three Americans who have some type of arrest or conviction, that means it hits close to home, even to our elected officials. They know people that are impacted. Their constituents are impacted as well. Of course, they're talking to the business community who lets them know we need to tap into a labor force and we need to change some of these laws and also our maybe hiring practices, but we haven't had any state say they refuse. We have had states that wanted to do Clean Slate policies but don't have the updated data infrastructure, and that's why we're working with our partners and legislators in those states that make sure that if Clean Slate laws come to their state, that they're able to implement it well with the automation.

Then what about a federal option? Do you see that as necessary?

Right now, there is no mechanism on a federal level to get your record clear outside of a pardon due to president, and so we are working on the Clean Slate Act that has bipartisan support to create a mechanism to petition to get your record clear and also to automate that process.

Then what's your biggest concern when it comes to getting Congress to pass a Clean Slate law?

When I walk the halls of Congress, people are very receptive. Legislators, their staff members, I have yet walked into an office where someone could not relate to my story or have a story that they would like to share, where there was a colleague, their buddy from college, a loved one, a daughter. I've even had folks who are members of Congress who are directly impacted themselves. They remember that they may have been arrested when they were younger, but they also, some of them may realize they had the privilege of being able to hire an attorney to get out of the case or whatsoever. My concern right now is that there are a lot of things happening right now. It's an election year. There's a lot of distractions happening in Congress, and I hope that our members will focus on the people and pass laws like the Clean Slate Act, but outside of that, it's really been gaining steam with bipartisan support.

What do your opponents say about the Clean Slate movement?

Well, Dana, I ask you first, who's my opponent?

So, you haven't come up against any hurdles in terms of getting all of the necessary people on board. It's really just a question of having the infrastructure to implement the program. Is that really it?

I think it's that and misconceptions of the policy. So, when I say no opponents, meaning there's no organized opposition against Clean Slate policies, not anyone saying that this is not good for our people. This is not good for our economy. Once we educate people around how this is good for our economy, how much money that we're losing by having folks locked out from the workforce.

You've described this as a people issue. What do you think most people don't get about the criminal justice system when it comes to minor criminal offenses like the one you said you committed?

I don't believe that the general public really understands how fractured our legal system is and how easy it is for people to get an arrest or conviction. That is what I believe, because some folks, when you ask the kind of person about people getting a record cleared, they may go to the most harshest offenses that they could think about. They're not thinking about the young parent or single mother like myself at that time, who was just trying to make ends meet who might've bounced a check. They're not thinking about somebody who might have made a mistake during their worst time in an addiction phase.

They're not thinking about the person who might've drove on a suspended license because they were still trying to get to work, or that got an offense for driving on suspended license. Folks are not thinking about those things. People don't really understand usually how our legal system work until you're in it, or maybe if you're a policy person or an attorney. Again, like myself, I'm someone who is directly impacted, and I work in this space for some years now, and I didn't even realize the different amounts of hurdles and barriers that people face because of a record.

Thank you so much for being on The Excerpt, Sheena.

Thank you, Dana.

Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Bradley Glanzrock for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to [email protected]. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.

Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement?

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Writing9 with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Your opinion

Don’t put your opinion unless you are asked to give it.

If the question asks what you think, you MUST give your opinion to get a good score.

Don’t leave your opinion until the conclusion.

Here are examples of instructions that require you to give your opinion:

...do you agree or disagree? ...do you think...? ...your opinion...?

Discover more tips in The Ultimate Guide to Get a Target Band Score of 7+ » — a book that's free for 🚀 Premium users.

Check your IELTS essay »
Find essays with the same topic
View collections of IELTS Writing Samples
Show IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Nowadays, we are producing more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can government do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?

The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s life. to what extent do you agree or disagree with the statement, some people think high-end technology can prevent and cut down the rate of committing crime. do you agree or disagree, task 2: some people say that sports play an important role in society. others, however, think that it is nothing more than a leisure activity. discuss both views and give yor own opinion., in some countries an increasing number of people are suffering from health problems as a result of eating too much fast food.. it is there fore necessary for governments to impose a higher tax on this kind of food. to what extend do you agree or disagree with this opinion.

IMAGES

📚 Essay Sample on Criminal Defense
😎 Criminal essay. Criminal Investigation Essay. 2019-02-23
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal
How To Write A Criminal Justice Paper
Criminal Investigation Process Essay
Criminal Investigation Process Essay

VIDEO

britney spears
MR. CRIMINAL @ SCOREBOARDS
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?
Criminal always goes back to crime scene. 범인은 항상 현장에 돌아오지 #cat #kitten #cute #kitty #funny #catlove
When The Criminal Is Faster Than The Police
criminal always smile 😊 #freefire #youtubeshorts #freefiremax #shorts

COMMENTS

Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal ...
perspective shows it might be wrong to say "once a criminal will always be a criminal". Secondly, it is . also. important that we as a society . ... sector. However, some people consider this is a positive trend, while other argue it has negative effects. In this essay, I will discuss both views, and in the end, I will present my opinion. 5. band.
The Harper Doctrine: Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal
Between 2006 and 2011, when it achieved a majority, the Harper government introduced an incoherent torrent of sixty-one separate criminal justice bills, a virtual tsunami of punishment. While many of these bills never became law, they imposed a view of offenders that constitutes a fundamental break with the country's past.
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will
The statement "once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal" has been a subject of debate for a long time. Some people believe that once a person has committed a crime, he will continue to do so in the future, regardless of rehabilitation and reform programs. However, I believe that this […]
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal ...
It is often argued that criminals will always be a criminal, whilst others consider that there is a possibility they never commit a crime again after serving their time in prison. Although there is a chance they can change, I firmly believe that criminals can never become as innocent as they were before | Band: 4.5
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal ...
A great argument essay structure may be divided to four paragraphs, in which comprises of four sentences (excluding the conclusion paragraph, which comprises of three sentences). For we to consider an essay structure a great one, it should be looking like this:
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: 'Redeemability' and ...
Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions ...
Belief in Redeemability and Punitive Public Opinion: "Once a Criminal
Angela J. Thielo is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Louisville. She received her PhD from the University of Cincinnati in the School of Criminal Justice. Her research interests center on the sustainable implementation of effective correctional practices and public attitudes toward correctional policy.
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: 'Redeemability' and the Psychology
The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works. ... Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: 'Redeemability' and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes. NCJ Number. 227246. Journal. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Volume: 15 Issue: 1-2 Dated: 2009 Pages: 7-24. Author(s) Shadd ...
PDF Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: Redeemability and the Psychology
Once a criminal, always a criminal?: 'Redeemability' and the psychology of punitive public attitudes 9. overall "mood" in this regard varies over time and across different jurisdictions (e ...
IELTS essay Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal
Although it is believed by some that criminals will always be into crimes once they commit it. I totally disagree, with the above fact and this essay shall support my notion. To begin with, According to the law people who commit crimes are punished, it creates fear among them.
Band 7: Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he
The statement "once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal" has been a subject of debate for a long time. Some people believe that once a person has committed a crime, he will continue to do so in the future, regardless of rehabilitation and reform programs.
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: 'Redeemability' and the Psychology
T1 - Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: 'Redeemability' and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes. AU - Maruna, Shadd. PY - 2009. Y1 - 2009. N2 - Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of ...
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal he ...
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal he will always be a criminal Do you agree with this statement Provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. ... Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173691679577 0.244688304435 71% => OK
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal
Lecture on re-commiting crime once criminal, always criminal? theoretical overview: 16 does the say about criminal offending? is the difference between and. Skip to document. Ask an Expert. ... Contemporary Theory Essay; Acoby Analysis; Criminal Minds Analysis Final copy; Gender, sex and crime- part 1 and 2; Indigenous Over incarceration and ...
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal ...
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement? Provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. ... Ensure the essay has a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The current structure is difficult to follow. coherence cohesion.
IELTS essay Once a person become a criminal, he will always be a
Once a person become a criminal, he will always be a criminal. agree or disagree. Some people are of the opinion that when someone is convicted of a certain crime, they will invariably be a perpetrator. In my opinion, it depends on individuals whether they change themselves or continue breaking the law.
Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal he will always
Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal he will always be a criminal Do you agree with this statement. Essay topics: Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement. Submitted by Har preet singh on Thu, ... Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151589136767 ...
Once a criminal, always a criminal?
Once a criminal, always a criminal? By Stephanie Slifer. April 23, 2014 / 7:35 AM EDT / CBS News About 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states ...
Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal
2011. Format. text. Abstract. Although labeling theory has been subjected to many empirical examinations, more often than not, studies present conflicting evidence or suffer from a variety of methodological limitations. In turn, the current analyses aim to contribute knowledge and clarity by evaluating the theory in a manner that addresses some ...
IELTS Band 8+ Vocabulary for Writing Task 2
offend (verb): to make someone upset or angry. perpetrate (verb): to do something that is illegal, harmful or dishonest. resent (verb): be angry at something or someone because you have been hurt or treated unfairly. 2. USEFUL COLLOCATIONS & PHRASES: minor crime = lesser crime = petty crime. major crime = serious crime.
Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always
Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement. ... Since the beginning of life on earth, Humans always had more privileges than animals. This essay will first focus on people's argument that experimentation on animals should be outlawed, and later on, it will also give ...
Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will
Often it is opined that once a criminal is born in a society, he would hardly change his attitude. Even though there are several instances when criminals pursue their status quo throughout their life, I think it does not imply to the major section of their group. To begin, most people avoid situations which create crime and they dislike criminals.
Living with a criminal record: When does a sentence end?
I would tell you Dana, a lot of people don't know once they had an offense and they paid their debt to society, they might not even know that their records going to hold them back from employment ...
Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always
These days, traffic problems are increasing day by day, and some believe, in order to solve traffic problems by increasing the tax for private car owners heavily and using the money to improve the arrangement, there are pros and cons to such a solution that we will discuss in this essay.

The Harper Doctrine: Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal

Related Posts

Kraft Dinner Is Canada’s True National Dish

The Ace Age

Deconstructing Dieppe

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Does Attitude Toward Offending Play a Role in a Person’s Compliance with the Law? Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Perceived Wrongfulness of Offending Behavior

Honour-Related Beliefs and Risk of Harm: Theory and Challenges for Policing

Revising the Critical Gaze: An Inversion of Criminological Theories to Center Race, Racism, and Resistance

Author information

Corresponding author

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

NCJRS Virtual Library

Band 7+: Some people believe that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement? Provide specific reasons and examples to support your opinion.

Check Your Own Essay On This Topic?

Other Topics:

The noise level around us is constantly increasing and affecting the quality of our lives. What causes the noise? What should be done about it?

Some think most crime is the result of circumstances e.g. poverty and other social problems. Others believe that most crime is caused by people who are bad by nature. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

As a result of growth in some urban centers, the environment in those cities is deteriorating. How could this issue be tackled by both the government and individuals?

Many crimes are often related to the consumption of alcohol or drugs. Do you think that the legalization of these substances would increase or decrease the crime rate??

These days, people work in more than one job, and often change career several times during their life. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?

Plans & Pricing

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Promoting 'Good Lives': A New Framework for Offender Rehabilitation

Once a person become a criminal, he will always be a criminal. agree or disagree

IELTS essay Once a person become a criminal, he will always be a criminal. agree or disagree

Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal he will always be a criminal Do you agree with this statement

Essay evaluations by e-grader

Once a criminal, always a criminal?

More from CBS News

Why Log In?

You are here

In Collections

IELTS Band 8+ Vocabulary for Writing Task 2 – Topic: Crime & Punishment

Vocabulary is unquestionably important in IELTS Writing because it accounts up to 25% of your overall score. Therefore, you should place a strong focus on learning vocabulary to prepare better for the IELTS test. This post covers 3 parts:

TOPIC: CRIME & PUNISHMENT

2. USEFUL COLLOCATIONS & PHRASES:

3. Writing Task 2 Questions in 2021 – Topic: Crime & Punishment

Related posts maybe you like:

Useful Vocabulary for IELTS Writing Task 1

May 14, 2021 / General / 4:08 pm

Popular Posts

Connect With Us

Living with a criminal record: When does the sentence end? | The Excerpt

Some people think that once a person becomes a criminal, he will always be a criminal. Do you agree with this statement?

Your opinion

Nowadays, we are producing more and more rubbish. Why do you think this is happening? What can government do to help reduce the amount of rubbish produced?

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS