Skip to content

Simon Ielts Full Essay On To Kill

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample 41 - By punishing murderers with the death penalty, society is also guilt of committing murder

Last Updated: Tuesday, 04 October 2016 14:24
Written by IELTS Mentor
Hits: 25237

IELTS Writing Task 2/ IELTS Essay:

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

By punishing murderers with the death penalty, society is also guilty of committing murder. Therefore, life in prison is a better punishment for murderers.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

You should write at least 250 words.

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

Model Answer 1:(Mixed opinion)The issue whether the murderers should be punished with death penalty or not is a controversial one. Many people support the death penalty as a capital punishment and think that this is a vital way to establish peace and law in the world but there are lots of opinions against it. I support the death penalty for murderers if it's really necessary for prevailing peace but if there is any alternative way to give the criminals a chance to remorse and lead a civilised life again, and then they should be given it.
In today's society, life is very violent and if we read the newspapers and watch the news on TV, we find lots of murders and other crime news almost daily. There are many mentally ill people who are committing crimes and almost nothing will stop them. These types of psychopathic murders commit murders even sometimes for personal pleasure. We have interviewed captured criminals who say, "I was going to kill him, but I knew that I could get the death penalty if I did. So I just left him there." Obviously, having the death penalty saves lives and that makes a positive difference to society. The death penalty is also useful to send the message to rest of the people that no matter who you are if you commit a murder you are going to be hanged till death or going to sit in an electric chair. This fear is helpful to reduce the homicide in many countries. If a criminal murders someone and then gets the death penalty, that isn't society's fault. Everyone knows about the death penalty as a punishment for murder. So, the person who murders is really killing himself at the same time he is killing his victim. The murderer has made the choice to die. It is important to remember that the death penalty is used only for people who have committed very serious crimes. For example, a woman shot a police officer when she was trying to escape from jail. She was already a convicted criminal when she committed murder, and she deserves the death penalty.

In many countries, crimes become so severe that the law enforcers can't control the situation and capital punishment becomes a part of the law practice but there are many cases where a man/woman kills another one to protect him or herself. It's not uncommon when a girl kills a rapist to save her dignity and before pronouncing the death penalty the reason must be considered. Even if a single innocent person gets the death penalty that will make the judicial system questionable.    

People need to accept responsibility for their actions. Punishing murderers with the death penalty is one way that society can help people to realise the consequences of their decisions.




(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers. You should be able to pick up the main points from this essay and organise in your own style)


Model Answer 2:(Agreement)
Punishment is the weapon which society uses to limit and reduce murders’ actions. Punishment type and toughness are different according to the types of crime or action. The most serious crime, which is killing a person with previous planning, leads the murderer to the death penalty after making sure that he/she is the killer through clear proofs. This essay tackles and discusses two contrasting opinions. The first party believes that death penalty is essential and fair enough for killers. Whereas others see that it is fighting badness by badness and that does not generate good and balanced society.

The first group of people who are pro penalty death have their own logical reasons for their opinion. They say that nothing is equal to life but life itself. So any other form of punishment will not be sufficient or fair. A human body is a unique private property and if somebody causes damage to it or destroys it, he/she must have the same damage. In addition to that making penalty extremely harsh is considered as an effective alarm or red light to whoever may think about committing crimes. Therefore the main aim of penalty will be achieved by reducing crime rates especially killing crimes which have bad results without sufficient compensate.

On the other hand, there are many people who believe that death penalty is not the best punishment they say that death of criminal or murder will not make the victim return to life. So it is not perfect compensate for victim’s relatives. Although it seems that by killing murder the balance of society will be return, some experts believe that it will raise violence in the society. As a result, they recommend that life in prison sentence is better. That penalty makes killer think always about his crime. It is also lifelong mental punishment when he/she finds other prisons finish their sentences while he/she stash for the rest of his/her life.

Finally, I agree with the first party because of the same reason which I have mentioned previously. Also, that opinion fits my religious belief as Muslim.



[ by - Mahmoud ]


Model Answer 3:(Agreement)
In the recent years, there has been a vast increase in the number of people committing manslaughter. It is a widespread belief that people who commit murders should only be punished by death penalty. However, some people are of the opinion that death penalty should be eradicated and life in prison should assume its place. Apropos of the statement, I am in part accordance with it.

It is inarguable that when someone commits an act of manslaughter, the said person must be punished at all costs. However, I believe the death penalty is not a permanent solution because by condemning murderers to death, society is also taking part in murders. Despite the well-known saying that goes "an eye for an eye", punishing someone for a murder with another murder charge is no justifiable by any means.

On the flip side, I also believe that prison does not serve as an appropriate solution as it is too lenient a punishment for murderers. Furthermore, when murderers are put in the same cells, studies show that it gives rise to more crimes, as they are likely to plot another murder together. Also taking into account that in this developing country, society is most certainly not going to employ people with the background of having been locked in a prison, people who commit murders will most likely commit other crimes owing to the unpalatable fact that they need money to survive in this world.

As such, I believe a more appropriate solution will be for the government to utilise prison as a means of learning and honing skills which could be useful for life after prison. It goes without saying that murderers should without a doubt take responsibility for their crimes, and I believe that can be done by giving them some sort of voluntary works as a lifetime punishment.

To sum up, punishing murders with the death penalty is unjustifiable and life in prison might not serve as a permanent solution. Instead, the government should make prison a place to repent and a means of learning new skills for murderers that could be useful for life after prison.



[ by - Jaclyn ]


Model Answer 4:(Agreement)
In today's modern world, we are constantly  bombarded with the issue of the death penalty which leads the public to assert that it should be replaced with a life-long sentence in prison as they believed that society as a whole is committing murder by punishing murderers with the death penalty. Personally, I strongly agree with this statement.

There are several points to support this statement. To begin, life in prison plays the same role as death penalty by giving the would-be offenders a deterrent. The main purpose of punishment is to warn others about the possible negative impacts of committing murder, thus, life in prison is proven to be useful and effective in deterring the would-be murderers from committing murder. Besides, a life-long sentence in prison will not break their relatives' or friends' hearts. It is because they are still able to visit the murderers in jail. In addition, the murderers in jail can be rehabilitated and realise what they had done previously are unacceptable which may eventually cause them to change their attitudes and behaviours.

Moreover, the main reason of punishing murders with the death penalty is to prevent them from re-offend which can also be avoided by life in prison. The society will be peaceful and people can live in serenity as long as the murderers are sentenced in the jail all their lifetime. By doing so, they have no opportunity to re-offend and, thus, will not cause any harmful effects to the citizens. Furthermore, the death penalty is considered to be a cruel and cold-blooded act as every human being may make mistakes sometimes and so they should be punished using other ways, like- life in prison.

In conclusion, I strongly agree with the statement that life in prison is a better punishment for murderers as it will achieve a better result than the death penalty. I believe the murder rate will definitely be lowered with this punishment in our nation in the near future and our country will continue to prosper and flourish in the decades to come.



[ by - Lee Wing Qeen ]


Model Answer 5:(Agreement)
Many people debate about what should be the right punishment and justice for the killers. Some people argue that giving the death penalty is not a well put and people may feel guilty as if they committed a murder as well and suggest giving a life imprisonment rather than death sentence. However, some others believe that it is better to impose a death penalty on them. This is not a trivial question to answer and personally I believe that death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for murderers. Hence, I will provide my idea from ‘saturate effect’ and ‘humanity value’ point of views.

Giving a death sentence may trigger a saturating effect for other people to be more aware of not doing the same crime. However, this idea may be in dispute and there is no such guarantee over the punishment. For example, Indonesia has imposed a death penalty since many years ago and some murderers were killed by the death penalty, Rian Jombang, for instance. Yet, several days ago people were shocked by the same crime done by someone else. Hence, the idea of generating saturate effect to negate the murder crime is definitely questionable.

Meanwhile, regarding humanity values the death penalty may be against the value of humanism. A murderer may kill someone from various motives, revenge or self-defense. Thus, it is considerably ineffective to pay an eye with an eye. However, by imposing a life sentence on murderer it may be a better idea instead of death penalty. We may understand that some murderers successfully be a better person after spending their lifetime in jail since they receive lecture and are supplied by a better life skill during prison time.

All in all, instead of imposing the death penalty to murderers, it is better to give them a chance to gain a better personality by punishing them with a life jail completed by life skill training. Someone’s attitude and behaviour can be evolved by a tremendous experience, cannot it?



[ by - Linda ]


Animal Rights Essay

This IELTS animal rights essay discusses the exploitation of animals by humans.

People who believe in animal rights think that they should not be treated cruelly, for example in experiments or for sport.

'To exploit' means to benefit from something in an unfair way.

Take a look at the question:

Discussing 'Two Opinions'

In this essay you are being given two opposing opinions to discuss.

This is the first opinion:

Animals should not be exploited by people and they should have the same rights as humans.

This is the second opinion:

Humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

In this type of essay, you must look at both sides. In other words you need to discuss the arguments FOR animal rights and AGAINST.

You must also ensure you give YOUR opinion.

Organizing the Essay

One way to organize an essay like this is to consider both opinions, then give your opinion in a final paragraph (see model essay 4) or dedicate a whole final paragraph to your opinion (see model essay 5).

Another way to write an essay like this is to also make one of the 'for' or 'against' opinions your opinion as well.

Look at the model animal rights essay below. The second body paragraph discusses the first opinion, but the topic sentence makes it clear that this paragraph is also representing the writers opinion as well:

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny.

This now means that in two body paragraphs you have covered all three parts of the question from the animal rights essay:

1. First opinion
2. Second opinion
3. Your opinion

The advantage of doing it this way rather than having a separate paragraph is that you do not need to come up with new ideas for a new paragraph.

If you have a separate paragraph with your opinion you may find you cannot think of any new ideas or you may end up repeating the same things as in your previous paragraphs.

IELTS Writing Example

Animal Rights Essay - Model Answer

Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. This essay will discuss both points of view.

With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons. Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must be done to ensure human survival. If this means experimenting on animals so that we can fight and find cures for diseases, then this takes priority over animal suffering. Furthermore, it is believed by some that animals do not feel pain or loss as humans do, so if we have to kill animals for food or other uses, then this is morally acceptable.

However, I do not believe these arguments stand up to scrutiny. To begin, it has been shown on numerous occasions by secret filming in laboratories via animal rights groups that animals feel as much pain as humans do, and they suffer when they are kept in cages for long periods. In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary. Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit. Therefore, again, having to kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.

To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps must be taken to improve the rights of animals.

(Words 290) 

Improve your writing score quickly

Have you found this page useful? If so you may be interested in our top selling writing eBooks!

Task 1 and Task 2 eBooks

"The books are beautifully written and are just as they say on the cover - a step-by-step guide. I highly recommend them!

Linda - Italy


A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

A growing number of people feel that animals should not be exploited by people and that they should have the same rights as humans, while others argue that humans must employ animals to satisfy their various needs, including uses for food and research.

Discuss both views and give your opinion.

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

Write at least 250 words.