犯罪的英文怎么写

guilty

有罪的. adj

guilty

[5^ilti]

adj.

犯罪的， 有罪的， 心虚的

guilty

[5^ilti]

adj.

犯罪的， 有罪的

自觉有罪的， 内疚的， 心虚的

have a guilty conscience

问心有愧； 做贼心虚

guilty looks

做贼心虚的表情； 内疚的神色

guiltily

[5^iltili]

adv.

guiltiness

n.

be found guilty

被判决有罪

be guilty of a crime

犯了罪

be inwardly guilty

理亏心虚

bring in guilty

（陪审团）判定（某人）有罪

bring sb. in guilty

（陪审团）判定（某人）有罪

plead guilty

【律】服罪， 认罪

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)