犯罪的英文怎麼寫

guilty

有罪的. adj

guilty

[5^ilti]

adj.

犯罪的， 有罪的， 心虛的

guilty

[5^ilti]

adj.

犯罪的， 有罪的

自覺有罪的， 內疚的， 心虛的

have a guilty conscience

問心有愧； 做賊心虛

guilty looks

做賊心虛的表情； 內疚的神色

guiltily

[5^iltili]

adv.

guiltiness

n.

be found guilty

被判決有罪

be guilty of a crime

犯了罪

be inwardly guilty

理虧心虛

bring in guilty

（陪審團）判定（某人）有罪

bring sb. in guilty

（陪審團）判定（某人）有罪

plead guilty

【律】服罪， 認罪

Unlike other countries, police in UK do not carry guns. Some think it leaves citizen unprotected, others think it reduce the overall violence in the society. Please discuss.

At the mention of a policeman, most people will have in their mind the image of a strong man or woman with a gun on his belt. But it is not the case in UK: police there do not carry guns. People's opinions towards this vary.

Some people think this contributes to the decrease of violence in society. For one thing, when a robber sees a policeman pointing a gun at him, he may get exasperated and desperate and, out of despair, he may hurt people around him. If the policeman does not carry a gun, nothing of the kind will happen. For another, to err is human and no one can guarantee that a policeman does not mis-shoot the pedestrians when he is hurriedly chasing a criminal. Lastly, some policemen have committed serious crimes with the guns they had.

However, other people hold different views: police without guns leave citizens unprotected. To begin with, at critical moments, guns in policemen's hands can be essential in fighting against the criminals. Imagine a bank robber pointing a gun at the head of a hostage. A policeman can hardly do anything about it if he does not carry a gun. However, the situation can be totally reversed otherwise. Moreover, policemen are well-trained and thus rarely hurt innocent people with their guns.

As far as I am concerned, the latter is more favorable. To my mind, policemen are the very few people on earth who should carry guns, with which they can effectively protect the citizens. (283 words)

Unlike other countries, police in UK do not carry guns. Some think it leaves citizen unprotected, others think it reduce the overall violence in the society. Please discuss.

At the mention of a policeman, most people will have in their mind the image of a strong man or woman with a gun on his belt. But it is not the case in UK: police there do not carry guns. People's opinions towards this vary.

Some people think this contributes to the decrease of violence in society. For one thing, when a robber sees a policeman pointing a gun at him, he may get exasperated and desperate and, out of despair, he may hurt people around him. If the policeman does not carry a gun, nothing of the kind will happen. For another, to err is human and no one can guarantee that a policeman does not mis-shoot the pedestrians when he is hurriedly chasing a criminal. Lastly, some policemen have committed serious crimes with the guns they had.

However, other people hold different views: police without guns leave citizens unprotected. To begin with, at critical moments, guns in policemen's hands can be essential in fighting against the criminals. Imagine a bank robber pointing a gun at the head of a hostage. A policeman can hardly do anything about it if he does not carry a gun. However, the situation can be totally reversed otherwise. Moreover, policemen are well-trained and thus rarely hurt innocent people with their guns.

As far as I am concerned, the latter is more favorable. To my mind, policemen are the very few people on earth who should carry guns, with which they can effectively protect the citizens. (283 words)