It is irrefutable that the absence of justice representatives is one of the chief instigators to the soaring crime rate over recent years. There arises a highly controversial topic of general interest whether beefing up the police force is infinitely superior to other forms to remedy unlawful engagement. From where I stand, I do agree with the aforementioned statement to a valid extent and reasons supporting my perspectives will be explored as below.
On the one hand, it is fairly understandable why a school of thought endorses. First and foremost, the key rationale in favor of this view is if there are more policemen on patrol, the risk of getting caught increases when we violate the law. For example, the pervasiveness of traffic wardens eradicates misdemeanors' intentions like speeding and they cannot get away with it. Another compelling justification is that winning hearts and minds enhances police legitimacy. To illustrate, police interaction makes fair decisions and respectful treatment that fosters public and cooperation. By contrast, partial dishonest acts erode public trust and breed future convicts.
On the other hand, the police are not of primary importance for a lot of reasons. To begin with, both vocational training and rehabilitation tend to reduce people's misbehavior and combat crime rather than tough measures from police. Root cause of not complying with the rules comes from unemployment and poverty, but with skills through education programs, inmates will integrate with the community and have stable income for living better off after being released. In addition, incarceration is a further measure to prevent engaging in a crime. As a result, years behind bars will help the offenders to be deprived of bad preference, which facilitates pondering not resorting to crime.
In conclusion, even though there are ample other workable remedies for decreasing the crime rate. I do believe that having more police on the streets is the best way to reduce and combat crime.
It is irrefutable that the absence of justice representatives is one of the chief instigators to the soaring
crime
rate over recent years. There arises a
highly
controversial topic of general interest whether beefing up the
police
force is
infinitely
superior to other forms to remedy unlawful engagement. From where I stand, I do
agree
with the aforementioned statement to a valid extent and reasons supporting my perspectives will
be explored
as below.
On the one hand, it is
fairly
understandable why a school of
thought
endorses.
First
and foremost, the key rationale in favor of this view is if there are more policemen on patrol, the
risk
of getting caught increases when we violate the law.
For example
, the pervasiveness of traffic wardens eradicates misdemeanors' intentions like
speeding and
they cannot
get
away with it. Another compelling justification is that winning hearts and minds enhances
police
legitimacy. To illustrate,
police
interaction
makes
fair
decisions and respectful treatment that fosters public and cooperation. By contrast, partial dishonest acts erode public trust and breed future convicts.
On the other hand
, the
police
are not of primary importance for
a lot of
reasons. To
begin
with, both vocational training and rehabilitation tend to
reduce
people
's misbehavior and combat
crime
rather
than tough measures from
police
. Root cause of not complying with the
rules
comes
from unemployment and poverty,
but
with
skills
through education programs, inmates will integrate with the community and have stable income for living better off after
being released
.
In addition
, incarceration is a
further
measure to
prevent
engaging in a
crime
.
As a result
, years behind bars will
help
the offenders to
be deprived
of
bad
preference, which facilitates pondering not resorting to crime.
In conclusion
,
even though
there are ample other
workable
remedies for decreasing the
crime
rate. I do believe that having more
police
on the streets is the best way to
reduce
and combat
crime
.