Very few people who commit crime want to. They do it because they feel they have no choice. This is the reality of the situation, and it means that police and prisons are not relevant to reducing crime.

It is widely argued that most criminals commit offences because there are no alternatives for them, so police and prisons have no effect on reducing crimes. I completely disagree with this view. It is undefining to make broad generalizations about the course of violation according to certain cases. However, it is true that some people violate laws because they are reduced to situations where they are unable to survive without doing so, such as stealing food out of extreme poverty, but this theory should not be applied to every case. On most occasions, people are motivated to illegally obtain something because their desire for it cannot be satisfied in decent ways. If we ascribe all the crimes to criminals’ failure to meet their basic needs, it cannot be explained why there are still high rates of robbery and theft in well-off societies. Therefore, it is not justifiable to say that a few people commit crimes of their own accord. On the other hand, force and prisons have been effective in dealing with wrongdoing in human history, and there are still no other feasible options. Police play an important role in law enforcement, and prisons have an effect on deterring criminals. Moreover, if it were not for these two government institutions, criminals would take to offences with abandon and society would fall into chaos. Only with the fear of being held accountable would potential culprits resort to legal ways to satisfy their desire. To conclude, it seems to me that offenders have other choices to live in besides committing offences, and police and lockup are highly relevant to reducing crime.