It is argued that most of the offences are carried out after drinking intoxicants so many believe that putting prohibition on this kind of drinks is an effective solution for decreasing the number of crimes. I disagree with this view since it would not reduce the crime, but give rise to other crimes and other solution like increasing the strictness of punishment for illegal acts is more effective.
Disallowing the use and selling of alcoholic beverages would result in the growth of other serious crime like smuggling. This is to say that alcoholic people in order to fulfil their demand of alcohol will encourage themselves to commit another unlawful act of trafficking of these beverages. In Bihar for example, government put prohibition on liquor in year 2016 for decreasing crimerates, but the results they received were exactly opposite instead of fall the rates rose by 13% in just 8 months of passing the law of prohibition. According to the Bihar police the reason behind the failure of this act was the illegal selling and trafficking of the alcohol.
The most viable way of dealing with the reduction of the number of offences committed is to increase the intensity of the punishments. Due this there would be rise of fear in the mind of this criminal minded people and this would discourage them from committing criminal activities. For instance, in Dubai the punishment for theft done by a person more than twice is that they cut the hands of the culprit because of this there is a fear and the crime rates have gone down related to the thefts.
To Conclude, putting restriction on liquor is not an answer for reduction of crimes as it not only would fail to lower the crimerate but also introduce a new stream of illegal act. For controlling this situation, strict punishment for criminal actions is an effective solution
It
is argued
that most of the
offences
are carried
out after drinking intoxicants
so
many
believe that putting prohibition on this kind of drinks is an effective solution for decreasing the number of
crimes
. I disagree with this view since it would not
reduce
the
crime
,
but
give rise to other
crimes
and other solution like increasing the strictness of
punishment
for illegal
acts
is more effective.
Disallowing the
use
and selling of alcoholic beverages would result in the growth of other serious
crime
like smuggling. This is to say that alcoholic
people
in order to fulfil their demand of alcohol will encourage themselves to commit another unlawful
act
of trafficking of these beverages. In Bihar
for example
,
government
put prohibition on liquor in year 2016 for decreasing
crimerates
,
but
the results they received were exactly opposite
instead
of fall the rates rose by 13% in
just
8 months of passing the law of prohibition. According to the Bihar police the reason behind the failure of this
act
was the illegal selling and trafficking of the alcohol.
The most viable way of dealing with the reduction of the number of
offences
committed is to increase the intensity of the
punishments
.
Due
this there would be
rise
of fear in the mind of this criminal minded
people
and this would discourage them from committing criminal activities.
For instance
, in Dubai the
punishment
for theft done by a person more than twice is that they
cut
the hands of the culprit
because of this
there is a fear and the
crime
rates have gone down related to the thefts.
To Conclude
, putting restriction on liquor is not an answer for reduction of
crimes
as it not
only
would fail to lower the
crimerate
but
also
introduce a new stream of illegal
act
. For controlling this situation, strict
punishment
for criminal actions is an effective
solution