LNAT Essay
Hello 👋, I just wanted to ask if anyone could read and critique my lnat practice essay. The question is:
Should the death penalty be reintroduced into the UK?
The death penalty is a form of capital punishment where a perpetrator is sentenced to death depending on the degree of the crime. Many countries used to use this type of punishment hundreds of years ago, but only a few use it today. This essay will argue against the use of the death penalty again by talking about how it is morally wrong, and how it won’t be an effective deterrence factor.
Some people may advocate for the return of the death penalty because it can deter and protect people. The punishment of death may put people in fear of offending, or reoffending if they already are a criminal. Furthermore, it can protect victims of dangerous criminals. Take for instance the murderer Beverley Allitt, a child nurse who injured nine children and killed four. Some of the survivors, despite being many miles away from her, still claim to see images and fear for their lives. If the death penalty had been imposed on her, would these victims still fear? This illustrates why some people may argue for the death penalty to be brought back, as it can help victims and their families adjust more easily knowing that their life won’t be endangered.
People may further warrant the return of the death penalty as it is a way criminals can make up for certain crimes. For example, one person can compensate for the murder they committed by having their life being taken. This could be seen as the law being fair. However, this is morally wrong to do. We’ve all heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and in this case it is true. If we agreed to kill a criminal, aren’t we just as bad as they are? This would also go against many people’s beliefs especially if they come from a religious background which is against the taking of a life. For example, Jews believe that life is sacred and that only God can take it. This therefore shows that the death penalty should not be reintroduced into the UK as it goes against morality.
In addition, how do we know that reintroducing the death penalty will decrease crime rates? We already have some pretty heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, yet people still commit the same heinous crimes. Also, just because one person is sentenced, doesn’t mean they don’t have connections who will seek out those who testify against them in court. Helena Kennedy demonstrated this in her book “Eve was shamed” when talking about why some women who are exploited, trafficked and raped don’t bring the issue to court. She said that some of her clients fear others in affiliation with the perpetrator who may avenge them. This would only result in more crimes being committed. This therefore shows that the death penalty is not good for deterrence, as it probably won’t lower crime rates.
To conclude, the death penalty should not make a return to the UK, because as this essay has demonstrated, it won’t be helpful in lowering crime rates and is morally wrong to do. Even if it were to act as a deterrent it probably won’t be applicable to all crimes, so we can’t be sure of its effectiveness, nor will it protect victims. This essay has shown that the death penalty can only worsen people’s lives and our morality as a nation
Should the death penalty be reintroduced into the UK?
The death penalty is a form of capital punishment where a perpetrator is sentenced to death depending on the degree of the crime. Many countries used to use this type of punishment hundreds of years ago, but only a few use it today. This essay will argue against the use of the death penalty again by talking about how it is morally wrong, and how it won’t be an effective deterrence factor.
Some people may advocate for the return of the death penalty because it can deter and protect people. The punishment of death may put people in fear of offending, or reoffending if they already are a criminal. Furthermore, it can protect victims of dangerous criminals. Take for instance the murderer Beverley Allitt, a child nurse who injured nine children and killed four. Some of the survivors, despite being many miles away from her, still claim to see images and fear for their lives. If the death penalty had been imposed on her, would these victims still fear? This illustrates why some people may argue for the death penalty to be brought back, as it can help victims and their families adjust more easily knowing that their life won’t be endangered.
People may further warrant the return of the death penalty as it is a way criminals can make up for certain crimes. For example, one person can compensate for the murder they committed by having their life being taken. This could be seen as the law being fair. However, this is morally wrong to do. We’ve all heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and in this case it is true. If we agreed to kill a criminal, aren’t we just as bad as they are? This would also go against many people’s beliefs especially if they come from a religious background which is against the taking of a life. For example, Jews believe that life is sacred and that only God can take it. This therefore shows that the death penalty should not be reintroduced into the UK as it goes against morality.
In addition, how do we know that reintroducing the death penalty will decrease crime rates? We already have some pretty heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, yet people still commit the same heinous crimes. Also, just because one person is sentenced, doesn’t mean they don’t have connections who will seek out those who testify against them in court. Helena Kennedy demonstrated this in her book “Eve was shamed” when talking about why some women who are exploited, trafficked and raped don’t bring the issue to court. She said that some of her clients fear others in affiliation with the perpetrator who may avenge them. This would only result in more crimes being committed. This therefore shows that the death penalty is not good for deterrence, as it probably won’t lower crime rates.
To conclude, the death penalty should not make a return to the UK, because as this essay has demonstrated, it won’t be helpful in lowering crime rates and is morally wrong to do. Even if it were to act as a deterrent it probably won’t be applicable to all crimes, so we can’t be sure of its effectiveness, nor will it protect victims. This essay has shown that the death penalty can only worsen people’s lives and our morality as a nation
Original post by eiosa
Hello 👋, I just wanted to ask if anyone could read and critique my lnat practice essay. The question is:
Should the death penalty be reintroduced into the UK?
The death penalty is a form of capital punishment where a perpetrator is sentenced to death depending on the degree of the crime. Many countries used to use this type of punishment hundreds of years ago, but only a few use it today. This essay will argue against the use of the death penalty again by talking about how it is morally wrong, and how it won’t be an effective deterrence factor.
Some people may advocate for the return of the death penalty because it can deter and protect people. The punishment of death may put people in fear of offending, or reoffending if they already are a criminal. Furthermore, it can protect victims of dangerous criminals. Take for instance the murderer Beverley Allitt, a child nurse who injured nine children and killed four. Some of the survivors, despite being many miles away from her, still claim to see images and fear for their lives. If the death penalty had been imposed on her, would these victims still fear? This illustrates why some people may argue for the death penalty to be brought back, as it can help victims and their families adjust more easily knowing that their life won’t be endangered.
People may further warrant the return of the death penalty as it is a way criminals can make up for certain crimes. For example, one person can compensate for the murder they committed by having their life being taken. This could be seen as the law being fair. However, this is morally wrong to do. We’ve all heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and in this case it is true. If we agreed to kill a criminal, aren’t we just as bad as they are? This would also go against many people’s beliefs especially if they come from a religious background which is against the taking of a life. For example, Jews believe that life is sacred and that only God can take it. This therefore shows that the death penalty should not be reintroduced into the UK as it goes against morality.
In addition, how do we know that reintroducing the death penalty will decrease crime rates? We already have some pretty heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, yet people still commit the same heinous crimes. Also, just because one person is sentenced, doesn’t mean they don’t have connections who will seek out those who testify against them in court. Helena Kennedy demonstrated this in her book “Eve was shamed” when talking about why some women who are exploited, trafficked and raped don’t bring the issue to court. She said that some of her clients fear others in affiliation with the perpetrator who may avenge them. This would only result in more crimes being committed. This therefore shows that the death penalty is not good for deterrence, as it probably won’t lower crime rates.
To conclude, the death penalty should not make a return to the UK, because as this essay has demonstrated, it won’t be helpful in lowering crime rates and is morally wrong to do. Even if it were to act as a deterrent it probably won’t be applicable to all crimes, so we can’t be sure of its effectiveness, nor will it protect victims. This essay has shown that the death penalty can only worsen people’s lives and our morality as a nation
Should the death penalty be reintroduced into the UK?
The death penalty is a form of capital punishment where a perpetrator is sentenced to death depending on the degree of the crime. Many countries used to use this type of punishment hundreds of years ago, but only a few use it today. This essay will argue against the use of the death penalty again by talking about how it is morally wrong, and how it won’t be an effective deterrence factor.
Some people may advocate for the return of the death penalty because it can deter and protect people. The punishment of death may put people in fear of offending, or reoffending if they already are a criminal. Furthermore, it can protect victims of dangerous criminals. Take for instance the murderer Beverley Allitt, a child nurse who injured nine children and killed four. Some of the survivors, despite being many miles away from her, still claim to see images and fear for their lives. If the death penalty had been imposed on her, would these victims still fear? This illustrates why some people may argue for the death penalty to be brought back, as it can help victims and their families adjust more easily knowing that their life won’t be endangered.
People may further warrant the return of the death penalty as it is a way criminals can make up for certain crimes. For example, one person can compensate for the murder they committed by having their life being taken. This could be seen as the law being fair. However, this is morally wrong to do. We’ve all heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and in this case it is true. If we agreed to kill a criminal, aren’t we just as bad as they are? This would also go against many people’s beliefs especially if they come from a religious background which is against the taking of a life. For example, Jews believe that life is sacred and that only God can take it. This therefore shows that the death penalty should not be reintroduced into the UK as it goes against morality.
In addition, how do we know that reintroducing the death penalty will decrease crime rates? We already have some pretty heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, yet people still commit the same heinous crimes. Also, just because one person is sentenced, doesn’t mean they don’t have connections who will seek out those who testify against them in court. Helena Kennedy demonstrated this in her book “Eve was shamed” when talking about why some women who are exploited, trafficked and raped don’t bring the issue to court. She said that some of her clients fear others in affiliation with the perpetrator who may avenge them. This would only result in more crimes being committed. This therefore shows that the death penalty is not good for deterrence, as it probably won’t lower crime rates.
To conclude, the death penalty should not make a return to the UK, because as this essay has demonstrated, it won’t be helpful in lowering crime rates and is morally wrong to do. Even if it were to act as a deterrent it probably won’t be applicable to all crimes, so we can’t be sure of its effectiveness, nor will it protect victims. This essay has shown that the death penalty can only worsen people’s lives and our morality as a nation
Hi! Great attempt, the LNAT essay section is super demanding so good for you for producing a rather clear and coherent response.
Some good parts:
Your structure is very clear and straight to the point. This is how I wrote my LNAT practice essays and the actual one. Some people may opt for a lot of fluff and beat around the bush for a captivating topic sentence, or write long sentences that look fancy but read unclear and rambly. Keeping it clear as you did is great as you can imagine the examiners go through a painful amount of essays and this way they can grasp at your point easily.
You also introduced examples to support your arguments, which is great for, well, support, but also to show breadth of reading and knowledge.
What could be improved:
Overall, while you did well by refuting counterarguments, I did find some to be a bit weak. Your first body paragraph argues that the death penalty can keep ex-inmates off the streets, which gives victims and their families peace. This could be easily refuted by saying that the same can be achieved by giving longer sentence lengths or life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty. To victims, other than the idea of "an eye for an eye", there isn't much difference between the perpetrator being imprisoned indefinitely and executed.
The first sentences in your second body paragraph can be written better or more precisely. They are also kind of redundant to each other. Instead of the first two sentences, you could write something like: the death penalty may be warranted when the defendant has committed a heinous crime, one which makes it seem morally unacceptable for him to continue living. Further, perhaps arguing that religious beliefs of some groups make it bad for governments to make or unmake situations opens a floodgate of other problems. If religious beliefs were taken into account like this, then the UK government may have to illegalise suicide and adultery, etc. You need to keep these in mind when writing these short essays: since you don't have a lot of time, don't opt for big arguments that can leave a lot unanswered because it makes it seem like you haven't scrutinised the idea further and didnt "critically think", even if you had, which I'm sure.
The beginning of your last paragraph is well written, but I must say the example does not really add to your argument and isn't quite relevant. The death penalty won't result in more crimes being committed because witnesses fear for their lives if that makes sense. So basically you kind of went on a faulty logic stream and ended somewhere you didn't want to. If you wanted to make this example work, you could instead say "just because a perpetrator is put to death, it doesn't mean that the victim (if still alive) and those affiliated with them are not still threatened by the perp's presence due to their affiliates". (I now kind of see that perhaps you are arguing the affiliates may be mad that their good bro got the death penalty and avenge them, if so you could build that argument but with more clarity. Otherwise, it doesn't seem very obvious or convincing even if the examiner looked super closely at it)
I'd say some general advice is to really give yourself time to think of some strong arguments, and maybe pick out the ones that are more persuasive and maybe even less used by others so you stand out! I'm sorry in advance if my reply was harsh, but I'd rather sound harsh than give you half-assed feedback. But overall, still good job, it's very difficult of a task! Good luck, and let me know if you need any help.
Original post by eiosa
Thank you for the advice, and no your reply was in no means harsh. I appreciate your honesty. Just a few questions: 1) What is your tactic for section A? 2) What did you read to prepare? 3) What topics do you think I should read?
No worries!
1) I used arbitio, I just practiced a *****t ton
2) Id say read a variety of topics on the guardian the economist etc, just touch a bit of everything
3) my whole strategy is not so fresh in my mind anymore but i’d say religion, covid, body autonomy (prostitution, surrogacy, abortion), british legal system, stuff like this
Original post by neviesan0603
No worries!
1) I used arbitio, I just practiced a *****t ton
2) Id say read a variety of topics on the guardian the economist etc, just touch a bit of everything
3) my whole strategy is not so fresh in my mind anymore but i’d say religion, covid, body autonomy (prostitution, surrogacy, abortion), british legal system, stuff like this
1) I used arbitio, I just practiced a *****t ton
2) Id say read a variety of topics on the guardian the economist etc, just touch a bit of everything
3) my whole strategy is not so fresh in my mind anymore but i’d say religion, covid, body autonomy (prostitution, surrogacy, abortion), british legal system, stuff like this
Thank you!
Original post by eiosa
Hello 👋, I just wanted to ask if anyone could read and critique my lnat practice essay. The question is:
Should the death penalty be reintroduced into the UK?
The death penalty is a form of capital punishment where a perpetrator is sentenced to death depending on the degree of the crime. Many countries used to use this type of punishment hundreds of years ago, but only a few use it today. This essay will argue against the use of the death penalty again by talking about how it is morally wrong, and how it won’t be an effective deterrence factor.
Some people may advocate for the return of the death penalty because it can deter and protect people. The punishment of death may put people in fear of offending, or reoffending if they already are a criminal. Furthermore, it can protect victims of dangerous criminals. Take for instance the murderer Beverley Allitt, a child nurse who injured nine children and killed four. Some of the survivors, despite being many miles away from her, still claim to see images and fear for their lives. If the death penalty had been imposed on her, would these victims still fear? This illustrates why some people may argue for the death penalty to be brought back, as it can help victims and their families adjust more easily knowing that their life won’t be endangered.
People may further warrant the return of the death penalty as it is a way criminals can make up for certain crimes. For example, one person can compensate for the murder they committed by having their life being taken. This could be seen as the law being fair. However, this is morally wrong to do. We’ve all heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and in this case it is true. If we agreed to kill a criminal, aren’t we just as bad as they are? This would also go against many people’s beliefs especially if they come from a religious background which is against the taking of a life. For example, Jews believe that life is sacred and that only God can take it. This therefore shows that the death penalty should not be reintroduced into the UK as it goes against morality.
In addition, how do we know that reintroducing the death penalty will decrease crime rates? We already have some pretty heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, yet people still commit the same heinous crimes. Also, just because one person is sentenced, doesn’t mean they don’t have connections who will seek out those who testify against them in court. Helena Kennedy demonstrated this in her book “Eve was shamed” when talking about why some women who are exploited, trafficked and raped don’t bring the issue to court. She said that some of her clients fear others in affiliation with the perpetrator who may avenge them. This would only result in more crimes being committed. This therefore shows that the death penalty is not good for deterrence, as it probably won’t lower crime rates.
To conclude, the death penalty should not make a return to the UK, because as this essay has demonstrated, it won’t be helpful in lowering crime rates and is morally wrong to do. Even if it were to act as a deterrent it probably won’t be applicable to all crimes, so we can’t be sure of its effectiveness, nor will it protect victims. This essay has shown that the death penalty can only worsen people’s lives and our morality as a nation
Should the death penalty be reintroduced into the UK?
The death penalty is a form of capital punishment where a perpetrator is sentenced to death depending on the degree of the crime. Many countries used to use this type of punishment hundreds of years ago, but only a few use it today. This essay will argue against the use of the death penalty again by talking about how it is morally wrong, and how it won’t be an effective deterrence factor.
Some people may advocate for the return of the death penalty because it can deter and protect people. The punishment of death may put people in fear of offending, or reoffending if they already are a criminal. Furthermore, it can protect victims of dangerous criminals. Take for instance the murderer Beverley Allitt, a child nurse who injured nine children and killed four. Some of the survivors, despite being many miles away from her, still claim to see images and fear for their lives. If the death penalty had been imposed on her, would these victims still fear? This illustrates why some people may argue for the death penalty to be brought back, as it can help victims and their families adjust more easily knowing that their life won’t be endangered.
People may further warrant the return of the death penalty as it is a way criminals can make up for certain crimes. For example, one person can compensate for the murder they committed by having their life being taken. This could be seen as the law being fair. However, this is morally wrong to do. We’ve all heard the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right”, and in this case it is true. If we agreed to kill a criminal, aren’t we just as bad as they are? This would also go against many people’s beliefs especially if they come from a religious background which is against the taking of a life. For example, Jews believe that life is sacred and that only God can take it. This therefore shows that the death penalty should not be reintroduced into the UK as it goes against morality.
In addition, how do we know that reintroducing the death penalty will decrease crime rates? We already have some pretty heavy sentences such as life imprisonment, yet people still commit the same heinous crimes. Also, just because one person is sentenced, doesn’t mean they don’t have connections who will seek out those who testify against them in court. Helena Kennedy demonstrated this in her book “Eve was shamed” when talking about why some women who are exploited, trafficked and raped don’t bring the issue to court. She said that some of her clients fear others in affiliation with the perpetrator who may avenge them. This would only result in more crimes being committed. This therefore shows that the death penalty is not good for deterrence, as it probably won’t lower crime rates.
To conclude, the death penalty should not make a return to the UK, because as this essay has demonstrated, it won’t be helpful in lowering crime rates and is morally wrong to do. Even if it were to act as a deterrent it probably won’t be applicable to all crimes, so we can’t be sure of its effectiveness, nor will it protect victims. This essay has shown that the death penalty can only worsen people’s lives and our morality as a nation
HI, this is a really good speech however,I think you should add more on why it should be reintroduces as it will show contrast.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LNAT essay way over word limit
- Arbitio vs LNAT - it's confusing and stressful
- LNAT
- do i have a chance at law at bristol
- Durham Law 2024
- Lnat help
- LNAT forum!
- How hard is the LNAT really?
- LNAT
- UCL LNAT score 2024
- How do I start revising for LNAT?
- LNAT tomorrow
- How do unis look at the LNAT
- LNAT candidates 2024 (for 2025 entry)
- LNAT essay
- Uni options
- LNAT tips :)
- LNAT!
- chances at law/is it worth it in my case?
- Can you do law with all stem a levels
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
Oxford rejection, do I have to hope for a miracle to get into my other universities?Law
11
15
Last reply 1 month ago
Has anyone received offers for law from university of Nottingham or Warwick?Law
18
35
