A recent newspaper reported that a 14 years boy who seriously destroyed his school got a punishment to clean street instead of sent to the prison. Do you think this is right? Or the young criminals should be sent to jail?
题目大意
有报道称严重破坏学校的14岁少年没有被送往监狱，而是获得了清理街道的惩罚。你认同该措施还是认为年轻罪犯应该被送往监狱？
思路解析
青少年犯罪问题是近两年社会关注度比较高的话题，也是雅思考试中每年都会考到的话题之一，所以大家可以去关注一下近期新闻对于相关内容的报道以及一些政策的发布。
说个题外话，雅思很多考题都是源于现实的，所以大家一定要在日常做好素材积累，老话说得好：多读书多看报，少吃零食多睡觉~
回到题目本身，这道题目有两个关键词，
seriously destroyed his school，严重破坏校园对应的是后文所作出的犯罪行为的铺垫，在已构成足够送往监狱的犯罪行为讨论本题才有意义。
young criminals， 从少年罪犯的角度来讨论本文所做决策的合理性。
对于青少年犯罪的惩罚方式的选择绝不能轻易被狭隘化，将送往监狱从所有惩罚模式中划分出来本身就是一种错误。
首先，我们先要清楚量刑标准，采用什么处罚手段往往参考当事人的犯罪结果和犯罪动机来综合考虑的、选择用清洁街道的方式来对于严重破坏学校的年轻罪犯进行惩罚是否合理并不能肯定化，而是要给予现实因素来衡量：
1. 犯罪的动机是衡量此惩罚方式的重要因素之一，其犯罪的原因是否情有可原，是否是以破坏为主要目的，或是由于非故意的方式或是基于青少年本身的不成熟而导致的恶性后果。
2. 犯罪的严重程度也是本论述不能给予充分定罪的重要原因，因为seriously本身也是一个过于主观的词汇，因而也就无法判断给予惩罚的适合度。
其次，我们再来看惩罚手段。是否应该送往监狱本身也不应该和其他惩罚方式区分开来：
1. 送往监狱的本质和其他惩罚方式，都是对于青少年的犯罪行为的映射，取决于上文所提到的各类因素的综合考量，本身也并不具备特殊性。
2. 送往监狱和其他惩罚的根本目标一致，都是为了能够用惩罚的方式改造并转化罪犯成为普通人，从而减少罪犯对于社会的危害，并没有一定要做出与其他惩罚产生区分的必要。
提纲
范文示例
I would argue in this essay how irrational the claim is to set up the system of punishment on young criminals without deeply considering multiple components contributing to the crime commitment and the appropriation of penalty; to distinguish imprisonment from all types of punishment itself is also myopic.
Whether the reported student should be punished to clean the street instead of sent into prison cannot be rashly decided without considering factors that can lead to the result of the penalty. Before scrutinizing the problem, factors lying under the phenomenon must be witnessed thoroughly: what is the motivation of this anti-social action? Is it a deliberate action or just a careless mistake? To those immature law-breakers, the key to the final punishment is not to force too severe consequences on them. Cleaning streets sounds extremely proper to those unintentionally violating laws because of their childish mentalities, but ridiculous if the damage to the school was done intentionally. Besides, the claim made by the topic is also absurd because it does not express certainty in its utterance. The word “serious” is so subjective that it is hard for one to ascertain the content of punishment without a clear definition. The severity of the vandalism is closely linked to what responsibility the student should undertake afterward—cleaning the street is not enough if the consequences are irreversible, such as the loss of life, or the deadly destruction.
Moreover, the thinking exhibited in the prompt seems also narrow-minded when it separates serving sentences from reasonable punishments to young criminals. The stereotype in the society considers imprisonment as an “unnecessarily serious” penalty imposed on the young, claiming that it is particularly cruel to give a “life-long” negative record to one who is still experiencing his adolescence. Imprisonment is just the reflection of the level of damage one has made to other individuals, living communities, or societies after the authority has balanced all the factors during the entire crime. Sending the young criminals to prison is aiming to correct the extreme actions, and therefore to stabilize the social living out of hazard and harmfulness. In that case, it is in perfect harmony with the goal of all other punishments. It is neither reasonable to set apart any penalty from others without clear boundaries.
In conclusion, it is the obscurity of the utterances in the claim, and the unreasonable consideration of imprisonment compels me to question the soundness of the topic; I sincerely believe that what kind of penalty is plausible depends on the clarification of all elements in the crime committed.
