请帮忙找篇英语作文,题目是《CRIME DOES PAY》找的也行.写的也可以!急用!

请帮忙找篇英语作文,题目是《CRIME DOES PAY》找的也行.写的也可以!急用!
请帮忙找篇英语作文,题目是《CRIME DOES PAY》
找的也行.
写的也可以!急用!

请帮忙找篇英语作文,题目是《CRIME DOES PAY》找的也行.写的也可以!急用!
观点性的：
if you are breaking the law then the police are wanting to hasell you therefor, you are always looking over your shoulder to see if there is a cop there. so what sort of a life is that for a person.
The other reason is that by breaking the law you may be endangering or taking things from other people who have earned things or do not deserve to be endangered.
I think that in some circumstances breaking the law can help people live better lives such as under-age drinking. If we weren't able to drink then we would be bored as hell. Our school holidays would be no fun and my plans for Saturday night would be gone. But in other circumstances I believe breaking the law only causes peoples live to be distroyed.
Such as drink driving is wrong. VERY wrong because it can cause other people harm not just yourself.
In my opinion, crime does pay. It pays the offendors for breaking the law, and in some cases stops the temptation of doing it again. On the other hand, we, the tax payers, encourage crime, by paying our taxes, which shelters and feeds the criminals when being prosecuted for what they've done. They should just be thrown in a cold corner and starve, as a punishment. Psychologically, the crimes committed harm the public, endangering their right to feel safe and secure, therfore, crime does pay in one sense, and not in the other.
I think that in some ways crime does pay. Like for instance if a poor family that is living on $150 dollars a week steals 2-3 thousand $'s they would be better off but they still would of broken the law. In that circumstance I think that yes it would pay.
But in a situation where a family man with 2 kids steals and gets caught and his kids grow up with no father figure in their life that would be a circumstance where crime doesn't pay.
but all in all I would have to say that crime doesn't pay because you would have to live with the guilt for the rest of your life. you could of stole off a pensioner who needed the money to get medication for the week/fortnight. but i do think that CRIME DEOSN'T PAY
I think that crime does pay. Look at politicians. They manage to steal millions of dollars from us and then call it tax. So why when someone steals money from a neighbour is it called a crime? Is it because the neighbour didn't wan't their money taken? Because this is the same as Tax. The real criminals in society are the politicians.
Also if these criminals get arrested they usually get a slap on the wrist and they get told not to do it again. I would be disapointed beyond imagination if I got told "Don't do that again. It's not good." So if there isn't a harsh punishment for commiting crimes then crime really does pay.
how could crime possibley pay.Let's say you have gone to coles stole roast chicken but you did'nt see the video camera you get out of the shop heading to your car, and the store manager plls you up and looks in one of your other shopping bags ,and well,well you have not pay'ed fr frozen chicken.
your most likely to be charged so were did that get you/nowhere...
No I don't think crime pays. You may endanger other lives as well as your own. Taking things from other people and hurting them is not a way to deal with a misfortune in your life. There are other ways of dealing with your anger or pain. The police will be after you all the time and once you are an offender once the police will see you as a trouble maker and will suspect you when there is another crime.
It all depends what kind of people we are talking about. That might sound a bit judemental but if we are talking about a person that is poor and needs stuff, the stuff the steal might make their life better.
But then again some people that can afford to buy the stuff they stole do it for the rush or the selfestem, thoes people whatever age or sex need help, they need people to give them prase for the good things they do, even if the things are only little.
I think crimes aren't that bad as long as your not harming anyone else. Drink driving and stuff like that is really just plain stupid because your harming other people as well as yourself. If people do commit crimes it's up to them, they'll just have to always look over their backs and make their lives harder, but that's just their fault.
资料,例子：
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/08/25/crime-does-pay-6-criminals-who-lived-very-very-well/
完整文章：
1
Over at That Other Website, there’s a link to a Findlaw column by Anthony Sebok, entitled, “Could Virginia Tech Be Held Liable for Cho Seung Hui’s Shootings, If An Investigation Were to Reveal It Had Been Negligent?” The subtitle of the column, which tells you all you need to know, is “The Unfortunate Answer.”
To be fair, Sebok is a law professor, and the question posed is a legitimate academic one: what, if any, legal liability does Virginia Tech face? And also to be fair, Sebok speaks the right words about how Cho bears the primary blame. But at the same time, the article illustrates that the trial lawyers of the sort Overlawyered complains about every day are not revolutionaries; they’re just doing what they’ve been taught in law school. Namely, find a legal theory under which one can blame third parties.
Sebok is careful not to declare the university liable, but at the same time, he doesn’t think there’s anything farfetched about considering that it might be. He doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to assign blame to the school for the acts of a criminal. Ultimately, he’s disappointed because Virginia is “notoriously pro-defendant,” and so even if the victims’ families can blame the state, the “final indignity” is that they could likely “only” win a maximum of $100,000. For the actions of a criminal.
Don’t feel too sorry for the families, though. What Sebok doesn’t address is that even if they can’t get rich from the state taxpayers, trial lawyers will be able to find someone who can pay them. Case in point: Doug Williams. In 2003, Williams shot 14 people (killing six) at his workplace at a Lockheed Martin plant in Mississippi.
2
One of the more interesting bits of information which came to light as a result of the State of Virginia's trial and subsequent conviction against mega-spammer Jeremy James was just how much Jaynes was earning before the nice folks at the Virginia DA's office put an end to it.
Are you ready?
The answer is…
...somewhere between $400,000 and $750.00.
Per month.
That's right…as much as $750,000, and no less than $400,000, each and every month during the height of his spamming career.
This amount was paid collectively by somewhere between 10,000 and 17,000 individuals each month - the ones who replied to the 10million pieces of email which he sent out each day, advertising stock advice, computer software, and Federal Express refund processing work.
In order to maintain this frenetic financial pace, Jaynes ran 16 high speed Internet connections from his non-descript home in Raleigh, North Carolina. He would use these to blast out the 10million pieces of spam a day, and then he would sit back and wait for the orders to role in. And, amazingly, role in they did.
Explained Virginia Assistant Attorney General Russell McGuire: "When you're marketing to the world, there are enough idiots out there."
Fortunately, with Jaynes' conviction, there is one fewer at large in the world tonight.
4
Luc Moers, the IMF Resident Representative in Tajikistan, has said that the results of the audits on Barqi Tojik, the national state energy company, and Talco, the national aluminum company, will remain confidential.
Although Moers did reveal that the audit uncovered numerous problems in accounting and bookkeeping, the decision to keep it confidential comes as a disappointment to journalists in Dushanbe. A bit of a betting pool over how scandalous the report will be, exposing juicy embezzlements or mismanagement in the company, was in the works.
One of my friends in Dushanbe who was assigned to write about the audit bitterly remarked,
Sounds like our Soviet-time experience. Some documents were marked ‘Strictly Confidential’ or ‘Fort Internal Use Only.’
Actually, it’s more fun than the bad old days. The corruption has gotten more extravagant and laughable.
The idea of the international audits of Barqi Tojik and Talco, as well as the NBT (National Bank of Tajikistan), was pushed by the IMF after the discovery of financial misreporting in the country. On April 2008 IMF Executive Board decided to stop further aid and loans to Tajikistan because of “inaccurate information” and asked Tajikistan to return $48 million in a six-month period.
When Ernst & Young published a short summary of their special audit report on the NBT in April 2009, it was like an explosion. The report said that the head of NBT, Murodali Alimardon, had been funneling about $1billion through a special scheme involving cotton production. Moers, commenting on the report, April 16, 2009 at the request of Asia-Plus, said:
For example, the fact that shareholders of Kredit Invest are themselves cotton investors and among the largest recipients of financing from Kredit Invest represents a conflict of interest.
The audit report was full of hot facts, familiar names, and huge sums. You can see why four months later Tajikistan’s journalists were watering at the mouth for the Barqi Tojik revelation, especially considering that company is run by a close friend of President Rahmon, Sharifkhon Samiev.
Snowballing complaints and multimillion corporate debts did eventually force Rahmon to axe Samiev a few months ago. But to paraphrase what one observer wrote at the time, Rahmon may have only succeeded in having a mountain give birth to a mouse.
As to Talco, the company has just undergone an expensive trial in London, losing $170 million in court expenses. Alas, the court agreement has not been disclosed, although the Dushanbe press reports that Talco’s export partners grew afraid when the presiding judges inquired into the exportation arrangement and the question of payments being funneled to small offshore companies in the Virgin Islands.
Probably, knowing the possible results of the audits, Rahmon first fired then has re-appointed the former head of Barqi Tojik to be director of the Norak hydropower station, while also promoting the former head of the NBT and hero of the Ernst & Young audit, Murodali Alimardon, to the position of Deputy Prime Minister — contrary to the Dushanbe press’ expectations of a long jail sentence.
So, what’s behind Moer’s decision? I suspect he doesn’t want anymore of the fired officials getting promoted. ;)
5
Nineteen confiscation matters were brought before Magistrate Beth Campbell on Monday, with a slew of items either restrained or forfeited.
This was more cases than were heard in the entire 2007-08 financial year.
There is a 14-day window to appeal, but the ACT is, for now, the proud custodian of an extra $52,885 in tainted cash, a Nissan Silvia, a Holden Vectra, hydroponic equipment worth about $1500 and computers linked to child pornography.
Tainted goods referrals to ACT Policing's criminal assets investigation team have increased dramatically in recent years, and police hope to ''bump up'' the confiscated assets fund to pay for law enforcement and crime prevention.
After property is confiscated, it is destroyed or, in many cases, put up for auction. The Confiscated Assets Trust Fund, managed by the ACT Public Trustee, had almost $1.4 million at the end of June.
The money can be put towards law enforcement initiatives, drug use prevention and rehabilitation services, and victims of crime support.
6
You have found £20,000 for the vocational training for the Bar, including living expenses, negotiated pupillage and are one of the few (20 per cent) to land a tenancy (permanent seat) in chambers. The pressures are far from over: the new criminal barrister will face another tranche of hurdles in what is one of the toughest areas of work in this competitive profession.
A few weeks ago I was at Luton Crown Court where a young woman excitedly told me that she had been taken on: the days of second-guessing what members of chambers thought of her were over, the creeping insecurities as to how she was doing banished.
But what are the realities of life at the junior Bar? Vibrant, exciting and professionally rewarding it may be: but it is also a place where clients, courts and solicitors are making more demands than ever.
The profession is transparently more accountable to the public. That is right, but one result is the newly complaints-conscious client. The Legal Services Act 2007 removed complaints handling from the profession to the independent Bar Standards Board. With greater public awareness of complaints opportunities has come an informed readiness to use the procedure. Statistically, and unsurprisingly, criminal clients have always been among the highest-complaining categories: the ramifications of perceived failure by a barrister is often condign, involving a loss of liberty — especially so when a case comes before an appeal court where criticism of the barrister in the original trial is not unusual.
Related Links
How can you decide if the criminal law is for you?
At a time when the squeeze on legal aid means fewer solicitors’ representatives in the lower courts, it is these cases that fall to the new junior tenant.
Then there is the impact of the avalanche of legislation in recent years. The criminal court is riddled with procedural hurdles: take, for example, the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2008 that took effect on October 6 and deal with magistrates’ courts proceedings. They are another example of complex procedural requirements in even the most straightforward of hearings. Breaches of these or other case management protocols can result in orders against the Bar for wasted costs — which courts increasingly use.
Then there is keeping up to date with the welter of law reforms; crime is probably the most reformed area of any discipline. In his or her first three years, a young barrister must complete 45 hours of further education.
What of securing the work itself? Solicitor-advocates take much of the work formerly done by the young Bar and it is commonplace for law firms and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to employ in-house advocates. Their impact cannot be overestimated. There is a stated policy within the CPS to instruct in-house where it can, especially in lower-level cases — in part at least to save money. So the old stomping ground where new criminal barristers honed their trade is shrinking.
Meanwhile, defence solicitors are also employing solicitor-advocates, both for Crown Court and magistrates’ court work: legal aid cuts mean that for their firms to survive, they need to take this work from the junior Bar.
The old concept of loyalty between solicitors and a set of chambers is also waning. Bernard Richmond, QC, a member of the Faculty of Middle Temple Advocacy, says: “Nowadays, solicitors have approved lists that often contain barristers from many sets. Mixing and matching is seen as a good way of keeping control and, more importantly, keeping the clerks and barristers on their toes . . . There is a harsher and less forgiving attitude to mistakes . . . and underperforming than there used to be . . . for the junior end this can be horrendous . . .”
None of this should detract from the unique and exciting life of the criminal barrister. From the start, a mix of spoken and written skills is deployed and vulnerable people will rely on your being on top of your game. No other profession provides such immediacy, responsibility and satisfaction from the start. That’s why it is tough to succeed — but also why so many want to try. The Bar has responsibility to nurture and protect that energy, enthusiasm and above all, talent.