Science is more useful than human judgment in stopping crime. To what extent do you agree?

There are a variety of points of view on the most effective ways to stop, or at least reduce, crime. Although police forces have improved their investigative techniques over the last few decades, it has been suggested that improvements in science have become more useful measures for preventing crime. This essay will argue that despite human judgement being superior is some areas, science is proving to be far more reliable in this area overall. Firstly, the reliability of science and the extent to which it can be used to stop crime is far-reaching and fairly conclusive. Techniques such as the identification of criminals from their DNA and the ability to detect even the smallest traces of materials in order to further police investigations are used as standard all over the world nowadays. These scientific advances have made it more difficult for criminals to operate and given police forces a wider variety of tools with which to tackle an ever-increasing range of crimes. However, it must also be recognised that these scientific techniques need to be implemented by people, because human judgement is necessary in deciding how a particular technique may best serve law enforcement services and the wider society. In addition, in some areas, human abilities exceed those available through scientific means. For example, the skill of super recognisers, who are people with the ability to identify faces easily, has yet to be matched or beaten by any computer to date. In conclusion, science has shown itself to be extremely useful in stopping crime. Although human judgement is undoubtedly crucial when it comes to the successful implementation of any scientific techniques, it is unarguably the scientific techniques themselves which are the most instrumental in the reduction of crime overall.