IELTS Speaking Part 3: Crime & the Law (Band 9 Sample)
IELTS Speaking Part 3 broadens your Part 2 topic into an abstract discussion — here, crime and the law. A band-9 answer states a clear view, develops it with reasons and concrete examples, and weighs the other side before landing a balanced conclusion. Below are four common discussion questions with band-9 model answers, plus why they score 9 and the collocations worth stealing.
Practice this exact speaking task with AI feedback
Record your answer and get a band score on all four criteria — Pro plan, credit-metered.
01 · Discussion questions & Band 9 answers
Q: What do you think are the main causes of crime?
I'd say most crime is rooted in circumstances rather than pure wickedness. Poverty, unemployment and a lack of opportunity push some people towards crime simply to get by, and factors like addiction and a poor upbringing play a big part too. That's not to excuse it, but I do think if you want to reduce crime, you have to tackle those underlying conditions rather than just punishing the results.
name root causes, then reframeQ: Do you think prison is an effective way of dealing with criminals?
For the most dangerous offenders, yes — some people genuinely need to be kept away from the public. But for the majority of crimes, I'm not convinced it works. Prisons are expensive and often end up as 'schools for crime', where minor offenders come out more hardened than they went in. I think rehabilitation and education would break the cycle far more effectively than simply locking people up.
concede, then argue the majority caseQ: Should the punishment always fit the crime?
In principle, yes — punishments obviously need to be proportionate, so a minor theft shouldn't carry the same penalty as a violent assault. But I'd add that fairness isn't only about severity; it's also about consistency and context. A first-time offender who made a genuine mistake and someone who reoffends repeatedly probably shouldn't be treated identically, even for the same crime.
agree in principle, then complicateQ: How can technology help to reduce crime?
It's already having a big impact. CCTV, DNA analysis and data tools help police prevent crimes and catch offenders far more effectively than before, and they can be a real deterrent. That said, I do have some reservations — mass surveillance raises genuine concerns about privacy, and there's a fine line between keeping people safe and monitoring everyone's movements. So it's a powerful tool, but one that has to be used carefully.
positive, then a privacy caveat02 · Why this scores Band 9
Each answer builds an argument in stages — claim, reason, example, then a qualifying turn ("That's not to excuse it, but...", "That said...") — so the discussion develops rather than lists points. The delivery holds across the longer turns without hesitation.
Crime-and-justice vocabulary is precise and idiomatic — "to get by", "schools for crime", "more hardened", "break the cycle", "a real deterrent", "mass surveillance" — and the collocations carry the argument rather than decorating it.
A wide range is handled accurately: a conditional ("if you want to reduce crime, you have to tackle those conditions"), a concessive ("But for the majority of crimes, I'm not convinced it works"), and a comparative ("more hardened than they went in"). Complex ideas are expressed without breakdown.
Longer turns are chunked into clear thought groups with stress on the contrast words, so the intonation signals emphasis and qualification the way a fluent debater's would.
03 · Useful phrases for this topic
Tap a phrase to see what it means and how to use it. Natural phrases like these lift your Lexical Resource score.
04 · Frequently asked questions
Do I need legal knowledge for this topic?
No. Part 3 tests reasoning in English, not law. A clear opinion backed by logic and a plausible example ('prisons can act as schools for crime') scores far higher than legal terms or statistics you're unsure of.
Is it okay to have strong opinions about crime?
Yes, provided you support them with reasons. A firm view ("rehabilitation works better than prison for most crimes") is fine, and even welcome, as long as you argue it rather than simply asserting it.
How do I handle a "should X always Y" question?
Agree or disagree in principle, then add nuance. This model accepts that punishment should be proportionate, but then complicates it with context and consistency — which shows exactly the developed thinking band 9 rewards.
How long should each answer be?
Three to five sentences: state your view, give a reason, add an example or a concession. Long enough to develop the idea, short enough to keep the discussion flowing.
Want feedback on your own answer?
Toey grades your recording on Fluency, Lexical Resource, Grammar and Pronunciation, then shows exactly how to reach the next band — Pro plan, credit-metered.
Try IELTS Speaking practice