Section II essay help/critique

[Ven]

Hi everyone, I've been practising essays and just wanted to see what people think about my writing. Be as harsh as you want, as I'm looking forward to all comments and feedback.

And, how much do you think this particular essay would score on the actual exam? (roughly)

Thanks again everyone.
__________________________________________________ __

The faculties for getting into jail seem to be ample. We want more organisations for keeping people out.
CHARLES DUDLEY WARNER
__________________________________________________ __

The act of putting individuals into jail is a concept of punishment. It is usually the result of breaking a law or causing harm to an individual and by isolating these individuals, they are given time to think about what they have done in order to reform them. When they have served their time in prison and have been released, there is a fear and apprehension that these individuals or former convicts may commit crimes again. Charles Warner suggests that organisations need to be introduced in order to keep them from doing so again.

Organisations generally nowadays perform rigorous CRB checks in order to ensure that individuals haven’t got a criminal record before they get employed. This first barrier in itself stops former convicts from re-integrating with society and pushes them back towards their former ways. This is inclusive of the fine print on the application form that usually reads, ‘a criminal conviction may not necessarily go against your job application.’ And even this is usually limited to government organisations and to very few private organisations. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

In the NHS and various schools, it is in the interest of the organisations to ensure only persons with a clean record are employed, as a misjudgement may lead to a child or a vulnerable person mistreated. The organisation then will not only have to answer to the individuals that are close to the victim but will no longer have a good reputation as a result of how quickly the media can publicise these events all over the UK. Organisations need to set limits but the former convicts themselves are not necessarily all bad people.

They may only be drawn back to their old way if they don’t occupy themselves with other tasks; organisations should try to implement schemes which allow former convicts to work for the society such as community service. They should also arrange for local visits by community support officers to see how they are getting along and, if required, arrange counselling. Sometimes, a free enrolment on an educational program might also help them learn new skills and allow them to apply for other jobs, furthering this integration into society.

Organisations (especially private ones) need to get more involved with former convicts and invest in schemes that don’t prevent them from being included in society. They also need to remember that these individuals are human beings too and possess the ability to work for the benefit of society.

[aspirant doc]

Originally Posted by Ven

as a misjudgement may lead to a child or a vulnerable person mistreated.....organisations (especially private ones) need to get more involved with former convicts and invest in schemes that don’t prevent them from being included in society.

One general point and one specific point.

The general point: you interpret "keeping people out" as meaning "stopping convicts reoffending". It can equally validly mean "preventing offending in the first place". Taking just one interpretation is one way of answering the question and allows detailed discussion, but often this can be repetitive or too uncritical; challenging the question, taking two interpretations, allows a broader discussion and allows interesting angles to be taken, or narrowed down. Neither is right, but arguably the latter (and more lateral) is more interesting for the examiner reading script after script?

There is a middle ground, something along the lines of "...the phrase "keeping people out" in the context of this quote can mean both preventing convited offenders from reoffending and also preventing people offending in the first place; it contains ideas of both primary and secondary prevention. I will examine both sides/one side only [delete as appropriate] for the following reasons....". That way you can talk at length about one, and get marks for alluding to the second and for a bit of analysis in terms of why you'll talk about one and not the other. Challenging the question, defining terms, exploiting ambiguities in the quotes, referring to different meanings, discussing the hard logic of the quote etc etc are things that score highly on the analytical essay of the two in Sect 2.

The specific point: children or vulnerable people can be mistreated by those without a criminal record. It's sort of a point of logic in your argument, if you get my drift...

These are small picky points. What you wrote reads well and would score well.

[Ven]

thanks aspirant doc. I will try and adopt this approach of looking at the question from various angles and while focusing on one, will mention the other others as well. Thanks for your help.