Some people believe more actions can be taken to prevent crime, while others think that little can be done. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Sample 1:

Many concerned parties today feel that crime has already been reduced as much as is realistically possible. While I agree this may be true in nations where security is prioritized over privacy rights, there is still tremendous progress that can be made globally.

Those who argue crime no longer needs addressing point to technological innovations. This situation is most apparent in authoritarian nations. Security surveillance can include the use of street cameras, digital tracking, and eavesdropping on private communications. For instance, in South Korea the crime rate in most urban areas is negligible and the average person reports little anxiety about possible criminality, in contrast to periods in the past when there were more instances of robbery, assault, theft, pickpocketing, and so on. These technological shifts have greatly aided law enforcement in prosecuting criminals thereby also increasing the deterrence of potential offences.

However, crime still exists and can be countered by addressing the deeper, societal roots. The main cause of all crime is poverty. When individuals earn a wage sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living, the entire motive for most crimes disappears. The evidence for this is that in wealthy countries where there is a relatively even distribution of wealth, the crime rates are low, and the police do not require draconian punishment or surveillance techniques. Beyond income, it is also possible to invest in improving mental health. Many people today spend too much time online and are vulnerable to extremist views. A still significant proportion of crimes could be eliminated by encouraging people to spend more time outdoors in their community.

In conclusion, though technology has reduced certain kinds of criminality greatly, it is still possible to lower crime rates by embracing a holistic, societal approach. The complete eradication of crime is likely impossible and therefore there will always be a need to make progress.

Sample 2:

The crime rate is increasing exponentially day by day. Some argue that efforts need to be increased to prevent this, while others believe fewer efforts are exemplary. I agree with the latter individuals’ opinion that less but more effective efforts should be taken to reduce crime. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will discuss both views along with my opinion.

Nowadays, newspapers are filled with news of crimes such as robbery, murder, rape and many more. So, many individuals feel threatened by this situation, and they think that the only way to overcome this issue is to take more actions to deter the offenders. For instance, the government should hire more police force, and patrol in the high crime rate areas must be 24X7. They believe that if more precise actions are taken against criminals, they only get petrified, which will ultimately reduce crime.

On the other hand, people who argue that more actions will not be effective against offenders believe that no amount of police force or captive punishment will reduce the crime rate. The reason for this is that people involved in criminal activity have a typical personality that, under the influence of rage and many other factors, will definitely commit a crime. To illustrate, in many cases, people with police protection still got killed in the past. Hence, such individuals believe that there is no point in increasing efforts to prevent crime.

I believe that increased efforts in terms of more police force or patrolling would not be as effective as a little bit more mindful approach to criminals, such as advanced technologies that help in warning people and police before the crime takes place. To defeat criminals, our system has to think one step ahead of them. For example, we can design software or technology that sends signals to the police when someone is in a dangerous situation. To elaborate more, a device with a chip gets activated when someone deliberately tries to harass women. This chip alerts nearby police stations so that they can take immediate action and save the victim.

To conclude, it is essential to control crime, but there are better solutions than higher efforts. The best plausible solution to limit crime is to think about something more compelling with little effort.

Sample 3:

Due to increasing crime, people have different perspectives. Some believe that to neutralize illegal actions, and there are various actions such as the death penalty, jail or heavy fines. However, others consider that nothing can be done to stop it. Taking stringent measures can control crime, but that must see the severity of the crime.

The first school of thought consider that actions like life imprisonment or ostracizing from a community can stop criminal activities. Criminals will think twice before committing a crime. To elaborate, in jail, they will feel isolated and remember the time they had with their family members in the past. Besides, if they are interviewed, they will suggest to others to keep themselves away from committing a crime. Thus, offence can be stopped from escalating. For instance, the number of rape cases has been reduced after the strict punishment or encounters of the culprits. In addition, a new law which empowers the victim to kill a person to defend themselves will deter the people from asking for ransom or murdering any person.

On the other hand, the masses consider that nothing can be done to control it. Firstly, strict rules are there, but these are not used effectively. For example, child labour is strictly banned, but still, children can be seen working in hotels or at home. If the offenders are caught, they get free after bribing the palm of the officers. Even today, there are a number of cases of above- mentioned cases, which are escalating at an alarming rate. Secondly, the delay in getting justice is another reason. The sufferers know well that they will not get justice and will wait for ages, even when they are on their last legs. Resultantly, the guilty dare more to do such abominable tasks. Either they try to compensate the other party, or they try to threaten others. Thus, nothing happens.

The culprit must be punished by seeing the severity of the case. If justice is given in time, it will build people’s faith in law and order and frighten the offenders about the crime’s repercussions.

To conclude, it is apparent that lifetime captivity or capital punishment can prevent criminals from committing illegal activities. Apart from it, justice on time and establishing law and order strictly, regardless of any pressure, can build the people’s trust in a democracy. Eventually, the crime rate will reduce.