Prevention or protection?
Governments are responsible for keeping people safe. But sometimes it isn’t easy to decide how to do that.
What's the best way for governments to keep people safe?
By preventing crime – for example, through education programmes or social support?
Or by protecting people from crime – for example, by opening more prisons or employing more police officers?
Comments (211)
The government should focus more of their resources towards the prevention of crime. This is because usually, there is not enough law enforcement to protect the people, so they should allocate some resources towards prevention instead, as it is harder to protect against crimes that could of had measures of prevention against it. Prevention should use up 60% of resources towards awareness and prevention, and campaigns of looking for mental health signs that seem to be so risky now-a-days. Protecting should take up 30%, I say this because there are many petty misdemeanors that turn serious if only people were taught how to manage their emotions better, and stringer ethics towards honesty and kindness. The other 10% I chose to go more towards schools, as this is where awareness most matters since students are the future of how the future thinks. Instilling honest principles in the young people of today is a great way to avoid some unnecessary conflict just because kids weren’t taught to manage social situations better, or how to handle a rough patch in life, or couldn’t find the help they needed. It is a fact most crimes or hurtful comments are made impulsively, so it is good to focus more towards prevention in order to protect.
Some good points, you mention that 10% should go towards schools, how can schools instil honest principles? Does your school teach you how to be a good citizen?
There are many ways schools can instill honest principles in young children and in teens. One such thing that comes to mind are youth internship programs for teens. There are a lot of programs for the youth depending on where you are in the US, and these programs are designed to busy teenagers, learn social skills while building their background and interesting them in different trades. These are great for occupying youth since you can’t really commit crimes if you’re too busy, and building connections with other humans. My school doesn’t teach us how to be a good citizen; however, they do offer after school activities that are meant to engage students in our school and keep them from getting into trouble. I do think there are a lot of areas my school can improve on, and that includes citizenship programs, like volunteering field trips, and spending the time to help out different centers.
Some great suggestions, thank you for sharing! Maybe you could talk to your teacher about ideas about how your school can embed better citizenship values within the classroom!
The school and the home is a major part of a child's life whatever the are thought at this stage matters a lot. If a child is in an environment where he is busy doing a lot of educational things the possibility of such a child getting involved on crime is low. Children should be involved in productive things such as: learning different skills because if the learn different skills at this age it would help them to be busy practicing what they have learnt the would not have time to think talk more of engaging in crime when the grow up because the know that crime would do no good to them.
Hey clever
Yes it is true that home is the first level of socialisation but if I may ask, when a child is well trained from home, and eventually the child leaves the parents and goes to live in the school or any other environment what is the probability that the child will not be influenced by peer group? Do you really think the child will remain a child of integrity or will be influenced to commit crime?
I would want to answer this question.I believe in preven-
tion because it's up to the
child to be influenced to commit Crimes and lose his or her integrity.
Hello!
Well,I think this a very good and iinteresting topisc which I think could provide a lot of solutions in our lives today. Most people who perform crimes nowadays are either from an uneducated or poor background and as such they makee poor, uninformed and sometimes irrational decisions. This is were I think the school comes in.
The school can help give people this good background by educating them in not only the formal aspect of education but also the informal such as proper decision making.
Here in Nigeria the government has introduced a compulsory subject in our school curriculum which is CIVIC EDUCATION OR NATIONAL VALUES EDUCATION. This subject teaches students about their rights, duties, priviledges and obligations. Through this subject I was able to learn about my rights such as right to freedom and rights to life. I am using this knowledge I have gathered as a result of this subject to now have an informative and educative discussion on this platform. This has made me a better citizen and a weel informed one at that wh knows their rights and duties.
I think things sucjha s this should not only be implemented in our cchool systems but in our daily rights to promote better citizens who can help the socety. This will help curb the fast rising rate of social crimes around the world today.
Thank You!!!
Thank you for sharing about what your school does in Nigeria!
Hey Ollie,
Considering that school is often called our second home and as students we spend more time in school than in our own homes, it is safe to say that school has an impact on our behavior and personality . Here we gain not only knowledge but also important developments. A good school has the power to shape students' lives in so many ways, and education is critical to our personal growth. This is why I strongly believe that instilling the principles of honesty in schools requires a comprehensive approach. First, it becomes critical to integrate ethics and character education into the curriculum, providing students with a platform to discuss the importance of honesty, integrity and ethical decision-making through concrete real-life examples. Second, educators and administrators play a vital role by serving as role models and demonstrating integrity in their actions and decisions. Establishing a clear code of conduct that emphasizes honesty, coupled with consistently applied consequences for dishonest behavior, and promoting open lines of communication can help create an environment where honesty is truly valued. In addition, integrating core values, including honesty, into all aspects of school life helps to reinforce ethical principles. The school's commitment to citizenship education is consistent with the goal of developing well-rounded individuals who understand their rights, responsibilities and the importance of ethical behavior in society.
I strongly disagree with you because school is like a place we spend at home more than school as you said, however, other students might be pampered at home and may act as good children at home but when they come to school their behaviour changes. This attitude might have a negative impact on other students so you cannot entirely blame the school because they are not in charge of these people. The blame game should be on parents of these kids because they have to study their children and find their weakness so that they can correct that mistake. A school might input good morals in a child to the highest point but it depends on the person's background and the mindset they have so the blame cannot be on the school but depends on the training from parents.
Hi bustling_cliff,
I appreciate your insights into the critical role of family in a child’s development. But I don't believe in placing blame on any particular entity because I think that won't lead to positive change. Rather, I believe that a balanced partnership between home and school is essential for the overall development of the child. The family provides a foundation of socialization, moral values, and emotional support, creating a nurturing environment. At the same time, the school provides structured education, diverse learning experiences and opportunities for teamwork. This collaboration ensures the all-round development of the child, addressing cognitive, emotional, social and moral aspects. The synergy between family and formal education produces individuals with academic excellence, life skills, and a strong moral foundation. This approach fosters independence, responsibility and a sense of community, producing individuals who are not only knowledgeable but also adaptable and socially aware. So I think balance is key and it's important to acknowledge and value all the sectors and people that continue to shape us.
I agree because...giving the student access to the platform it can help to gain more knowlede about honesty, integrity.
some times the students who dont have phones, it is ture that our parent have phones so they can access their parent phones, in addition to have more knowledge when they are on the platform.
Excellent answer, thank you for sharing your insight with me!
Hi there, that’s a great question. Schools play an important role in instilling honesty principles in students, they do this by increasing values like honesty, integrity or programs that focus on character education where students learn about the importance of ethical behaviors. Schools can also provide open discussions and opportunities for us to practice being honest in our daily activities interaction. I believe that teaching good citizenship super important into shaping us into well-rounded individuals. Additionally schools provide opportunities for students to develop empathy and understanding towards others.
Thank you for sharing, I agree that students should be encouraged to develop empathy. Does your school teach this? If so, can you suggest how?
Well in regards to whether my school helps students in developing empathy or not, in my opinion I would say kind of but not really. I say this because when we say developing students empathy meaning the teachers need to also be empathize with us the students which they do not mostly do, though they might not be always empathetic towards us, they do try making we the student develop empathy by making the students engage in community service and also learn about social issues like creating a safe and respectful environment for open discussion about social issues and current events and they also help in conflict resolution by teaching students effective communication and conflict resolution resolution skills to help them empathize and understand one another.😅
Agree with you as kids need the teachings they can for there possible future but at the same time prisons need money because they need to protect people in the prison.
I'm not sure about this because... I think the people in prison don't need protection. Who at all are you trying to protect the prisoners from? Those who are not in prison are the ones who need protection because the prisoners could kidnap them, kill them, rob them and worst of all influence them with their negativity. But I personally think prevention is the best option because when you prevent crime there is no one to protect which makes the job single.
I agree because like we have just heard a man called well his nickname (Fito) has escaped from a prison in Equador, To be honest, we need more protection in prisons because it's not that easy to escape from a high matinence prison but he has we need more lock more security police and even more highly managed security cameras. Today at school we made a detective board and me and my friends came to conclude maybe a police man or police group may of helped him as well as his laywer and the rest of his (gang) he so calls it so as well as protection you need someone who you trust in the job! Also, such an amazing point!
I believe schools can instill honesty in children by teaching these values in class and by organizing community service activities. My school already includes national values in all subjects teaching us how to be responsible citizens.
Yes my school teaches me how to be a good citizen because the vision of my school is "to make global citizens that will be change agents". At my school, we are treated equally and guided to do what is right. If we make mistakes we are reminded and helped to correct them. School isn't just for learning, it is where we develop morals and attitude were we are trained to be better citizens. In my school, being cool isn't just about popularity it's about having the right morals. So I believe school place a big role in shaping US into responsible and good members of society.
Yes, I agree with you that schools can instill honesty in children because schools are just like second homes to children. I must say, a lot of children spend more time in school than home so they are being impacted positively too. Schools help in impacting knowledge and good values to children. My school impacts knowledge in us the students, they tell us about the recent happenings in the world and builds our skills such as; listening skills, writing skills, speaking skills etc. I also believe that there are lots of agents that help in installing good morals in children but i will list few which are ;
The Media; the media is a mass communication that teaches people on good morals too because as things are being posted,people also reply to it.
Parents; they teach their children good morals at home because no parent will want to stay and see their children go astray. The home is the first unit of socialization so the children observe and imitate their parents to learn good morals.
How can schools instill honest principles
The school as an institution plays a crucial role in the aspect of instilling honest principles. It is said that a person whom you look up to,you begin to wear his or her character that is Role models in the school can be a powerful way of instilling and inspiring honest principles in the minds of the students. Students can learn positive things from their role model in their school such as teachers,principals or non teaching staff.
Schools can help instill a strong honest principles in students by teaching them the importance of honesty in subjects like social studies,history ,civic education and the likes adding the importance and how it affects them and the society,i believe if they are sensitized more they will surely have that positive mindset of honesty.
In addition,during extra curricular activities in schools,schools can use that opportunity to encourage students to set personal goals and values that relates and align with honesty . this can be done through individual counseling,classroom discussions whereby students have a clear understanding of their own values,they are more likely to make decisions that align with those values and also instill honest principles in their minds.
Schools have being an institution where they dont only teach and learn but also instill some moral principles in the minds of their students which makes them go far in life,one of those principles is honesty,schools now teach students on the assembly ground a topic for week in which some is honesty,dramas are also acted live on stage on the importance of Honesty some become emotional and have a positive change of mind to be honest throughout their lives.
Literature can also be used to explore moral dilemmas and the value of honesty. Clubs like the debate team can help students learn how to communicate honestly and respecfully.
Schools should address the students using real life examples on the consequences of dishonesty making it tangible to them so that the students can a rethink and see why it is important to be honest.
I agree because... preventing people from crime is the safest option. Catching people while young is a very good idea, I say this because when you have gotten them young it will be very hard for them to deviate again. Protection is very risky because... human lives are at stake when talking about deploying more police and soldiers but when it comes to prevention it overall improves the rate of crime. Prevention also helps when planning ahead when talking about future crime rate because prevention simply means that less of such is going to occur in the future.
Thankyou @methodical_harp.
I disagree because as much as prevention is important, so is protection. In my opinion, protection is not "risky" because the whole purpose of protection is to preserve human life.
Hi,
I agree with you, I also picked this option because it is true preventing crime to me is the whole deal, if we prevent the crime in the first place there won't be a need to protect people from crime or danger and during my research I found out that the benefits of preventing crime are more that that of protecting people from crime. Protecting people from crime just provides a limited range of benefits, Like you said protecting can only do a little but preventing can help us go a long way in enhancing our quality of life, improving our public safety, strengthening our communities and reducing regression. There are many things we could prevent especially when they are still at there lowest stage. For example if in my country we can make job opportunities more available it will be better , because it is the lack of jobs that make people resort to a life of crime. Most of the people in my country that commit crimes like stealing, robbery, kidnapping, etc. do these things because they do not have any source of livelihood and that was the only thing they could do to find a means to survive and after doing it for sometime it becomes hard for them to leave that life, so creating job opportunities is an effective way of reducing crime and prevention of crime can do a lot for a country like minimizing financial and social costs associated with criminal activities, these funds that are used up for the purpose of protecting people from crime can instead be used to do many other the things for the development of the country. Crime prevention measures can be imbibed in various platforms and settings like the family, schools , the market, etc. Preventing crime is a farsighted path that aims to identify and address the root causes of crime and trying also to tackle it to reduce the tendency of criminal activity, on the other hand, protecting people from crime is a reactive path that centers its attention on responding to criminal acts after they have happened or occurred. So you see prevention of these crimes is more effective than protection from these crimes , and also "prevention is the key to longevity".
Thank you!
I agree with you. The government should focus and spend some money on preventing crime. If they prevent crime, then they won't have to spend money on keeping people safe. Preventing crimes is better since by preventing them, they are already keeping other people safe. It's like 2 in 1. Like you said, preventing brings a lot more benefits than protecting since preventing stops a crime and there is nothing to worry about, and also protecting can only do a little. This is why I think either 60-70% should go to preventing crimes, and 40-30% should go to protect the people.
This is a really interesting response. You write about 10% of resources being allocated towards schools. How do you think school-aged students could best be approached?
Well, for really young children it would always start with the basics like teaching how to share, be sympathetic and empathetic. For more older children, I think different field trips and programs would be a great way to teach them honest principles and how to adapt and learn. Field trips include helping out shelters, volunteering, and maybe just a field trip where someone sits down with them and has a discussion. I don’t think scaring them into staying away from crime would be very effective, or for example something like the D.A.R.E program. The D.A.R.E program was a campaign for students to say no to drugs and cigarettes, but many of the children in that program ended up doing drugs and smoking cigarettes anyway. I think a more lighthearted approach involving getting students involved in their communities, and internship programs will keep a lot of kids out of jail. This will teach them to work hard and be able to earn money through their efforts.
I agree because it is very good to be gentle with children and approach them in a friendly manner and as you have said field trip and also excortions would help the older children. When approaching older children it is good for you to start with things that would interest them. Teaching children the effects,consequences and problems associated with crime would help them a lot. Students should also be encouraged to learn a skill while in school.
I agree because that is the most effective approach in bring up children the right way. Whatever they learn at a young age will stay with them forever.
I tally with you methodical harp, just as some people would say, "It is easier to build up a child than to repair an adult. Your words and actions have power in the child's life. Use them wisely." A child's mind is very powerful. When you educate a child, it involves the body and not just the mind yes going on excursions will actually help the child. A child should know the dos and don'ts so that the child will not mistakenly do what is wrong out of ignorance. Because these days, I hear stories of children going into crimes. But I won't go deep because of the youngsters here. So, when we educate, we educate fully not halfway. Do not postpone and thing that will educate and improve.
Hi,
I agree because... when I was younger I was told that "prevention is better than cure". I went for the first option that the best way for the government to keep people safe is by preventing crime. Preventing of crime is better because where there is no crime, there will be no need to protect people from crime. I believe that the government should allocate more of their resources to preventing crime through teaching of students in schools about dangers of crime, organize programmes for youths discouraging a life of crime, financially helping the less privileged so that they would not begin to commit crime out of desperation and so on. But also because the government allocates more resources to preventing crime that does not mean that they should neglect the aspect of protecting people from crime. As much as the government tries its best to prevent crime, crime is still there, therefore the government must also put things in place to protect people from crime.
Thank you.
I agree with you, the government should centre their attention on preventing crimes because if they choose to prevent crimes, prevention of crime simply means the attempts to eliminate crime prior to it occurring or before any additional activity. And in my opinion, if the government have money, they should at least use 80% of the money on preventing crimes because it is their first priority as the government, to keep their people safe from any harmful danger and students should also be taught the consequences and the harmful effects of crime to restrain them from attempting any, and school is the foundation of everything, school is where we all learn about how and why things are happening.
So it is good to concentrate on preventing the nation because if they do not prevent, how would they protect nation, I mean they go hand in hand with each other.
Thank you.
Hello, admirable_reindeer, I strongly agree with your opinion.
Government should focus their attention on preventing crimes. if Government are to use 80% of their money to prevent crimes as you stated, In my opinion I would they should invest the money in creating opportunities for the youth. 90& of the happenings in the world today is as a result of unemployment. Cybercrimes, Yahoo, and many more are as a result of joblessness. So I think law enforcement, developmental, community and situational prevention should go alongside job opportunities. ThaNK YOU
Hello! I appreciate your agreement and your insightful perspective on crime prevention. Investing in creating opportunities for youth is indeed crucial for addressing the root causes of many crimes, such as unemployment. By providing avenues for education, skill development, and meaningful employment, governments can empower individuals and communities, ultimately reducing the likelihood of engaging in criminal activities.
Combining efforts in law enforcement with developmental, community, and situational prevention strategies, as you suggested, can create a comprehensive approach to tackling crime. By addressing both the immediate factors contributing to crime and the underlying socioeconomic issues, governments can work towards building safer and more prosperous societies for all. Thank you for sharing your valuable insights!
One of the main functions of governments is to ensure good safety and security of their citizens. However, there are different approaches and strategies that governments can use to achieve this goal.
For me it depends on the nation because some governments may focus more on preventing crime, while others may prioritize protecting people from crime.
Preventing crime means taking proactive measures to reduce the risk and opportunity of criminal behavior. This can include implementing laws and regulations, enforcing social norms and values, providing education and employment opportunities, addressing the root causes of crime such as poverty and inequality, and investing in community development and social cohesion. Preventing crime can have benefits for society, as it can reduce the costs and harms associated with crime, improve the quality of life and well-being of people, and foster a culture of respect and responsibility.
While on the other hand,
Protecting people from crime means taking reactive measures to respond to and mitigate the impact of criminal behavior. This can include providing police and justice services, ensuring the rights and interests of victims and offenders, offering support and assistance to those affected by crime, enhancing the security and resilience of infrastructure and institutions, and promoting the rule of law and human rights. Protecting people from crime can have immediate benefits for society, as it can restore order and stability, deter further criminal activity, ensure accountability and justice, and foster a sense of trust and confidence.
There needs to be a balance between preventing crime and protecting people from crime because they are both important and complementary ways for governments to keep people safe. Governments need to balance the costs and benefits of different approaches, consider the needs and preferences of their citizens, and adapt to the changing circumstances and challenges that they face. Ultimately, the best way for governments to keep people safe is to adopt a holistic and integrated approach that combines both prevention and protection strategies, while also engaging with other stakeholders such as civil society, private sector, media, and international partners.
I strongly agree with your opinion reasoning_knowledge.
Preventing crimes while protecting people from the crime itself. In most cases, the preventing crime factor may not eradicate the crime at once. Therefore while preventing the crime the government should also protect the people. if preventing the crime method should only be used then it will be injustice to the victims of the crimes. The government should also enlighten the people on various steps and actions to take when they are in danger.
The citizens also have a role to play in the prevention of crimes. They can help in reducing crimes by removing opportunities for criminals and by promptly reporting any suspicious activities to the police.
This is where the police have a significant role to play. Their core mission is to is to control crime. The prison is their weapon of justifying and reforming the criminals. so, criminals should be dealt with so that people can be protected.
In the protection of people and preventing crimes I think the roles of both the public and mostly Government is greatly needed.
I agree because you distributed the percentage of the money smartly. I also appreciate that you suggested that 10% be allocated to schools because school is a site for petty crimes to be committed and that's how this little criminal activities continue to develop until they become high level crimes like drug trafficking and its likes. But if 10% is given to schools, students can be enlightened on the dangers of crime and corrected at an early stage, the allocation of the 10% goes along with the saying prevention is better than cure.
Another way to prevent crime in schools is by provision of a counsellor for the students. I can proudly say that this is effective because in my school we have a counsellor. Students go to see the counsellor whenever they have problems with home, classes, bullying, cultism suspicions and even disorders like excessive urge to steal, she advises them on how to stay away from negative emotions and even monitors them while keeping their records. This way crime is attacked right from a young age and prevented before it worsens.
I solidly agree with what methodical harp said. Yes the government should focus more of their resources towards the prevention of crime. Like there is a quote that states that prevention is better than cure. The government should spend money on prevention than protection. The government should spend about 20 percent of their money on protection while they should spend about 80 percent of their money on prevention.
Prevention has to do with education programmes, people are been adviced, thought about the consequences of involving into crimes and explains to you how to be safe from crimes.
Thanks.
Education makes people to become a better citizen so that there will not have any reason to put their mind in criminal acts. People should always talk about how to prevent their self's from crimes and learn to be free in other not not get involved in crimes.
Opening more prisons does not show any development in the country rather it shows how corrupt the country is becoming.
I agree, The government should create employment opportunities for it's citizens so that they won't be idle because idleness makes people to be involved in crime. The government should also talk with their citizens so that the can know how their citizens feel about all the decisions they have been making. Citizens should be informed about the consequences of crime. The government should be just and fair in their dealings because this would help in reducing the rate of crime in the country.
You are right chatty_fact, a wise man one said to me "idleness is the devil's workshop" I totally agree when thaht we are idle, we will lack what to do and what pops to our mind is crime. So, the government should get more jo to keep people busy. Let's prevent crime in our different countries we should not only count on the government we can also do something for our fellow citizens! because those people can help you in your own time of trouble.
The effect of unemployment on people depends on the persons mind set. If someone with a negative mindset does not have a job, he or she might go into criminal activities. But someone with a positive mindset will work on how to better his life through creativity and innovation. Lack of employment is a problem in many countries. Instead of blaming the government for every bad thing in a country, we should make minor differences that will sum up to a major difference in the country. Self-employment should be sought after. Not only does it create jobs for others, it can also serve as a source of revenue.
Sometimes idleness isn't always the cause of crime. There are some crimes that even came about as a result of not being idle. Some people have jobs, but still commit crimes. Embezzlement is a type of financial crime and it is hardly a result of joblessness. Not all crimes are even related to money. There are some crimes that don't involve money in any way. Eradicating poverty won't completely erase crime. Some crimes will still thrive despite the availability of surplus money. We are focusing on the crimes that are caused by greed and need for money. We are not thinking about crimes that have no relationship with money, but other ulterior motives.
I strongly agree to your points
I'd like to add to your points
I believe crime can also be prevented by government by collaborating with other nations to address trans national crime such as human trafficking and drug smuggling.
To sum it up, government should foster strong relationship
between law enforcement and communities to encourage corporation and trust.
Thank you for the reply loyal_snow. You are right, collaboration can go a long way, after all "Alone we can do so little but together we can do so much." If the government joins hands, they can be able to monitor crime on a global level. This can be seen in the formation of INTERPOL ( The International Criminal Police Organization ). This organization fights crime globally. It is a really good way to handle criminals because if a criminal is arrested and escapes to another country to continue their life of crime, the INTERPOL can take care of that for sure. They handle mostly cyber crime and terrorism but this can still go a long way in helping the world at large. Collaboration will benefit us in a myriad of ways. If we want to actually fight effectively against crime, then we should learn to work effectively with each other.
I agree with this comment because having nothing to do will only promote laziness. Not only this but, I also agree with the fact that citizens should be enlightened and provided with employment opportunities.
Afghanistan has the 4th highest crime rate in the country. I believe this is because of lack of information and lack of employment opportunities. This could easily be avoided if resources are directed towards provisions for preventive measures.
I agree because...government should create job opportunities for youth and citizens so that it will avoid poverty, ignorance, incontentment and avoid them to be idle because we said that an idle man is the devil's workshop. Yes government should allow youth on their young age at SSI to choose their subject early so that it will be easy for them to choose their career. In terms of crime, government should let people know about crime, and also inform them about the punishment if they commit a crime. The government should be just and fair in their dealings because this would help in reducing the rate of crime in the country.
I REST MY CASE........
I agree the government can negotiate with the people so that the can get to an agreement and agree on better condition of service. The should also create various job opportunity so that citizens would be able to involve themselves in meaningful and productive things. The government should avoid corrupt,manipulative and unjust practices. Students should be well informed on the consequences of involving in crime, so that when the are caught the would be punished accordingly.The government can participate in lowering the crime rate by providing rehabilitation programs for criminals and also by ensuring that police officers are effective in their duties.
Here are some ways that the government can use to reduce crime the include: improving public safety, increasing the availability of welfare services and employment opportunities, and providing law enforcement with the resources they need to investigate and solve crimes.
Hi chatty fact I totally agree because...
There is this saying that says an idle man is the devil's workshop. So I agree with that the government should create employment opportunities for youths so as to minimize the rate of crime in our societies. And also educational programs should be given in other to create awareness of the consequences of crimes. And I believe with this the rate of crimes would be reduced.
Thanks.
I agree with you, unemployment in societies brings about idleness and because of that it increases the rate of crime. This is a really big problem and there is so much need for the government to tackle the issue. As it is, prevention is better than cure, so the earlier it is being tackled the better for the country. For example, Nigeria, the country is really facing unemployment which is devastating to the citizens and this is also something that causes reduction in population in most countries because some people who are unemployed begin to feed on their children due to the hardship which strikes them really hard.
I totally agree with you because i believe that in a country with a government that has money to spend, prevention of crime would be the better way to spend that money. I say this because if about 80% of these funds were to be directed at crime prevention, these educational programs would go a long way because apart from educational funds could be directed to low income families to prevent members from resorting to a life of crime. The other 20% of the funds could go to opening new prisons and employing more officers because there would always be people who would refuse to be educated and resort to a life of crime. So the rest of the money could be used to handle such people.
I solidly agree with what methodic harp said about prevention and protection. According to my own opinion, government should focus more of their resources on prevention because, preventing means avoiding something in other not to occur especially wrong or negative things. It is when you don't prevent and an event is about occur that is when you start talking about protection. I think government can play a crucial role in reducing crime. Crime needs to be prevented to make human feel secure.preventing crime because it is better for crime to not even happen that makes the world safer. The government are already trying to protect people from crime but that doesn't protect them from the murders and robberies that happen.
In conclusion, I think government should keep more eyes on preventing an incident from occuring than protecting because prevent is better than curing.
Thank you!!
Very true without law enforcers who will protect the people, for instance, in Nigeria we just witnessed a very emotional case, on December 24th, we experienced an ambush in the areas of Bokkos and Barkin Ladi in Plateau State, the government have promised their support in protecting them and that is why I think that money should be spent more on law enforcers to avoid cases like this, but again there should still be money saved to make prisons more effective and guarded to avoid cases of escape in areas and make life safer.
Thank you for reading.
Your perspective emphasizes the importance of crime prevention through resource allocation, particularly focusing on awareness campaigns, mental health initiatives, and ethical education. Prioritizing prevention in schools is highlighted as a crucial step in shaping the values and behaviors of future generations. The aim is to address the root causes and mitigate impulsive actions.
I think maintaining a well-trained and adequately staffed law enforcement presence is important. This includes responding to emergencies, investigating crimes, and maintaining public safety. Teaching students about conflict resolution, emotional intelligence, and ethical behavior can contribute to a more socially responsible and law-abiding society. Public input and collaboration with various stakeholders, including communities and experts, would be essential for the success of such a comprehensive approach to crime prevention.
I agree because... Prisons are already nearly fully fledged, so now it is time to prevent the prisoners from doing the same crime when they escape. However, I believe that more should go into school, and more into awareness. I believe this because kids learn young how they will act and behave when they get older, so at least 15% of the governments money should go into school awareness, and 65% should go into awareness programs and prevention, because more people will see these programs that tell them not to do crimes. Social programs and schools are better at telling people, especially kids, how to live life the fullest, because a large majority of children go to school, where they believe everything they are told. so warning children about the dangers of doing crimes would most likely decrease the crime rate.
I confidently agree with you because prevention is better than cure in this case cure is the protection, but if you protect people from committing crimes that doesn't mean that people will stop committing the crimes if you prevent them from committing crimes you save or reduce your resources to pass in vain. In this case, prevention is better than protection by far.
I am looking forward to corrections.
Thank you.
I agree with you completely, but i need to add something to your comment. The government should customize a portion of its resources to detect people who take drugs, treat them, and discover the reasons that led to thier addiction. Because i think drugs are considered one of the most important reasons for committing crimes.
I think that opening more prisons and hiring more police officers isn't going to work that well. It is because you don't usually open more prisons expecting them to be empty. I believe that in order to reduce crime, there should exist more educational programs and social support. Many people steal because they are poor and they need food and money. Many people have felt abandoned by the government, so they decided to take the matter into their own hands. We should probably remember that education starts early in people's childhoods. They need to be shown what is right and what is not, but also that they are not alone and they can benefit from the government's help.I know that everybody has a reason for what they might be doing, but I strongly believe in the saying " My freedom ends when it has come across your own rights." My teachers say this very often. It refers to the fact that, while you have the right to do things for yourself, it all falls apart when you start bothering others. That's when you have to stop. I find it crucial to understand that others have rights too and we need to respect them.
Thank you very much for your response. Can you think of some examples of educational programs that have been successful?
Hello Henrietta,
In today's world, technology is everywhere and constantly advancing, playing a vital role in our daily activities. However, the widespread use of technology has led to an increase in cybercrime. Cybercrime is unique because it occurs in the digital realm, involving computers and the Internet, unlike traditional crimes that occur in the physical world. What makes cybercrime particularly dangerous is its global reach and the ability of perpetrators to hide online. These digital bad people can use sophisticated tools to carry out attacks quickly and at scale, making them difficult for ordinary people to defend against. They often target valuable information such as personal details or money, leading to issues such as identity theft and financial loss. The economic impact of cybercrime is huge, as large amounts of money are required to repair the damage caused. The ever-evolving tactics of cybercriminals make it difficult for everyone to stay safe online. At its core, cybercrime presents unique and ever-changing challenges in the digital world that are different from the crimes we typically encounter on the streets. But I believe that in order to protect ourselves and save the world from cybercrime, we can take simple steps. First, use strong, unique passwords for online accounts. Second, keep devices and software updated to fix security vulnerabilities. Third, be cautious when clicking on suspicious links or downloading unknown files. Fourth, use antivirus software for an extra layer of protection. Fifth, limit sharing personal information online. Lastly, stay informed about the latest cybersecurity threats and follow best practices for a safer digital experience. Together, by adopting these habits, we can contribute to a safer online environment.
Yes I strongly agree to this comment because people have reasons for everything that they do it could be that they were hurt emotionally and thought that hurting other people can be a remedy. There alot of people today who fall into depression because there is no way to solving their problems. S
I think the government are not taking things seriously and not listening to the public and how they have been efected by the rude and immoral act of humans I have seen lots of documentary of people not being heard from metropolitan police and other national police. I think the government needs to get ideas from the public and try to make the country a better place.
What ideas from the public can they have and how would you help the police do their jobs better in the UK, I am interested to hear your thoughts!
Hello, Ollie, Technology Consultant@ KPMG.
The public could help the police force do their jobs better and efficiently by:
-Volunteer: Citizens can assist the police by performing some voluntary activities such as, clerical tasks, code enforcement, etc.
-Reporting crimes which have been witnessed.
-Police officers should be often complimented to make them feel important and thank them for the impact they have made in the community.
-Participation in neighborhood watch programs.
-Taking part in community meetings to help positive relationships between the police force and the civilians.
Thank you!!!
This is really interesting. What sorts of ideas do you think the public could offer the government?
I think for more laws about safety and more high security. I know there are some prisons
like that but criminals are very smart on how to escape.
Your thoughts are important, and connecting the government with the public is key for making positive changes. How do you think this bridge can be built effectively?
I voted to prevent crime. Crime is caused by the economic conditions in that country, including median income, poverty, and job availability, and sometimes by family conditions. I think that the government should support their citizens 100 percent by preventing crime in their country. They can prevent criminal behavior by enforcing laws together with their punishment, and they should try to have job opportunities and also bodies that can help prevent crime from happening. As they say, preventing is better than cure, because people can no longer live freely in a world of crime, so crime needs to be prevented to make people feel secure and calm.
I agree with you, if there is no crime, the government don’t have to prevent the people from crimes. When there are no crimes, people feel secured and safe. Crimes affects the economic and educational system of a country. Citizens have try their best to prevent crimes.
I completely concur with you because unemployment is a major contributing factor to crime. Additionally, poverty and unemployment are closely related.For instance, in a nation where individuals' social standing often prevents them from getting employment, people often feel insecure and believe that committing crimes against one another is the best way to increase their money and improve their life.
Therefore, I believe that the government should invest more in job possibilities than in jails in order to avert this predicament.
I agree with you, peaceful_peguin ,sorry to say this but there will always be bad eggs. Which always have their story to tell and as a developed country there should be strong law enforcement, effective crime prevention strategies and a robust justice system. By investing in these the government can work towards reducing crime rates and creating a safer environment for its citizens. And these will make people feel secure and will have a sense of trust and wellbeing.
I resolutely stand with you on the fact that these days, the government are always looking for ways to prevent crime, but they hardly check out on how to protect people from even starting crime. How sure are we that it's not the short comings of the government that causes crime. In my country, its " Government for the people, by the people and to the people." Their main purpose is to protect us and provide to our satisfaction at least so that people will not see the need to commit crime.
I agree because as you have said unemployment and poverty are reasons that lead to crime: If the government create more industries and reduce the cost of education then there would be low crime rate in the country, but if citizens are employed the would not have time to engage in crime. Law should also be enforced in the country and those who are found breaking the law should be punished. The government can also create an avenue/place where people who did not go to school can learn a trade so that everyone in the country would have something doing.
The government should put more effort in preventing crime rather than protecting citizens from it.
I agree because... when you prevent crime, you indirectly protect people from crime. Therefore, I feel the government should spend about sixty percent on preventing crime and forty percent on preventing people from crime, if they have to.
Ways to prevent crime include:
- Overcoming the rich and poor divide.
- Creating awareness among youths.
- Encouraging job programs.
- Investing in education or school programs.
Can Topical Talkers find examples of these kinds of crime prevention programmes in their communities?
They can be organized by elites and sponsored and encouraged by the government. Ways to put this into practice include:
- Partiality and discrimination among citizens should be discouraged and exterminated.
- Youth groups should protest on high crime rate and misuse of prisons and enlighten other youth on the importance and correct use of prisons.
- Government should invest more in creating more job opportunities for citizens because unemployment and underemployment are major factors of high crime rate.
- The importance of prisons to prisoners, victims of crime and the public should be added to school curriculums (civic education).
Importance of prisons to:
a. PRISONERS: It is to correct law breakers on their unacceptable behavior and its effects to their personal lives, other citizens individually and the country as a whole.
b. VICTIMS OF CRIME: Prisons are a sign and act of justice to crime victims. They are also a symbol of safety as they isolate victims from their assaulters.
c. THE PUBLIC: Prisons isolate prisoners from the public so that prisoners cannot corrupt them and to use them as examples on the consequences of law breaking.
There are several community-based crime prevention programs that have been implemented in various communities. One such program is the Community-Based Violence Interventions (CVI), which has been successful in reducing gun violence and violent crime in communities over the past two decades. The program works to reduce homicides and shootings through trusted partnerships between community stakeholders, individuals most affected by gun violence, and government. The program connects individuals most at risk of committing or experiencing violence with community members who have walked a similar path whom they trust or respect.
I agree with you because firstly, "prevention is better than cure" as the popular quote states, and then it would be better to totally eliminate and prevent crime than to protect people from it because with the prevention of crime people won't need protection from it because it would be non-existent.
I agree with you, but we mustn't forget that although prevention is better than cure, it is also better safe than sorry. The fact that citizens must be protected against people who commit crimes that refuse to be rehabilitated, that more police should be recruited and that more secure prisons should be opened absolutely should not be overlooked.
Yes, it is important to educate people in order to prevent crime, but not everyone chooses to do the right thing. And hard as it may be, those who choose the wrong thing have to face the consequences.
well said! wondrous_mode. I strongly agree with you, focusing on total elimination of crime should be the main goal. because what is the usefulness of protecting the people from crimes when the causative agents of the crimes are still roaming freely. Laying a harsh and cruel consequence for the doers of the crimes should be put in place.
Protecting the people from the crime is also a good thing but I think eliminating the crimes should be the upmost priority.
I'm not sure about this because... I think both prevention and protection are equally important. I think 50% of the resources should go to preventing crime while the other 50% should be allocated to protective measures.
The reason why I said so it's because preventing crime is important because it ensures the safety of everyone reducing the risk of anyone being harmed which will create a safer environment. Also dedicating funds to protection is equally important because it's also Shields people from harm and danger.
I strongly believe that both prevention and protection effort can work hand in hand to ensure the safety and well-being of our community.
That is an interesting observation you made about the link between crime rates and poverty. Why would an increase in job opportunities help to reduce crime in certain areas?
I agree because preventing crime would have a bigger effect than protecting in general because after a crime is committed someone loses something and the criminal is in prison which is protecting but if we prevent it we can not only help someone to live a better life we can also stop someone from losing something or someone
The government should take a bigger percentage of their money to the protection of people from crimes. Why? Because to fully prevent crime, the government need to eliminate the root causes of crime such as poverty, family conditions and even religion. These root causes, and more, are almost impossible to eliminate so why waste time trying to prevent crime when we can find ways to protect the innocent ones who are victims of crimes.
The government can take 70% of their money to protect people from crimes and the remaining 30% to prevent crimes. The money spent on protecting people from crimes can be dedicated to the introduction of more prisons or the employment of more police officers. It can also be dedicated to the strict training of officers in the stance of ill-behaved individuals.
The remaining 30% can be dedicated to education campaigns and social awareness events to enlighten individuals on the dangers of living a deviant life (which could result to their death). Safety measures can also be employed in case of dangers occurring, people can protect themselves by making temporary solutions before seeking legal help from the police (e. g self defence )
I think you make an excellent point about the root causes of crime often being linked to poverty. Do any topical Talkers agree or disagree with original_robin's statement:
"These root causes, and more, are almost impossible to eliminate so why waste time trying to prevent crime".
I slightly disagree with you, because if we think so negatively from the beginning, then of course it will seem impossible. I believe that we should be thinking more positively. We can't actually solve a problem if we don't even expect to succeed. I hope that we can agree on the fact that:
By preventing crime, we make sure that less people are in prison, that less people are killed and less people are unhappy. Prison isn't a nice place, where you could live a decent life. Not at all. By committing a crime and going there, the course of your life changes. It can prevent you from what you could've become. It prevents you from killing other people, but it can also prevent you from getting the life of your dreams. Only if you wouldn't have made that one mistake that led to this, you could have now been happy, with an amazing, stable job, with friends and family around you. I don't believe that those who get out of prison could ever have the same life. Some change into a better version of themselves. Unfortunately, some just give up, become depressed and live a miserable life. Another unfortunate case is when somebody comes out of prison and decides to go back to the old, bad habits. When that happens, I would like to know: What was even the purpose of staying in prison? I totally understand that people need protection, but preventing crime also means to protect the people. Personally, I would like to find a way to help the people who decide to commit crimes understand why it is wrong. Everybody has a certain reason for which they are doing something, but that doesn't mean that others deserve to be the victims.
I won’t say I completely disagree with you marvellous_hedgehog. What you said about thinking positively caught my attention. You have a good point there, but that doesn’t mean it is completely accurate. Just because we choose to look at the positive side does not mean there is no negative side. One mistake that people make is ignoring the negative side because it is called being pessimistic. We shouldn't ignore the negative side, we should find a way to solve it. In this case that would be to protect the people from crimes by improving law enforcement agencies. Yes, the government should try and prevent crimes but if they let their guard down then a crime wave could arise and them by surprise and not the pleasant type of surprise. It is inevitable to have a negative side because not everyone will accept change. Sometimes they may have been taught but they still chose to take the wrong path and we can’t really do anything about that can we? Prevention is better than cure but it is better to be safe than sorry. If we invest everything in prevention then we will have no resources left to cure if the need arises. Prevention is good but I think protection is paramount.
I agree with you that poverty is one of the main causes of crime, but we can also work to stop it from happening. If we spend all of our time trying to protect the innocent, crime rates will rise and will only get worse. Therefore, I believe it will be wise to strike a balance, or there should be a decrease in protection and an increase in the percentage of prevention.
I agree with you, original_robin. I have found that a lot of crimes are being committed because of the financial situation of the perpetrator.
Many people are being prompted by poverty to commit crime. Some just to feed their families. I think the solution here is youth empowerment. As it is the job of the government to keep the country safe, I feel that they should use some of the money allocated to them to empower youths. Programs can teach people various skills like sewing, hairdressing and catering. Just something to keep their hands busy. The government can also sponsor those already into personal businesses that are struggling, like farmers. More jobs should be created. People who are employed and working are less likely to commit crimes. A lot of people do desperate things to take care of themselves. Although they made bad choices and should still be sanctioned, the government should make efforts to empower youths will survival skills to lower the crime rate.
I'm not completely sure about this. If the correct measures are taken, crime will actually be prevented. A child can be easily influenced so educating children when they are young will be very beneficial to the society in the future. Preventing crime will help a lot in keeping people safe from dangers they could possibly face in the future. If all the children are taught about crime and its dangers, there is an 80% chance that they will grow up trying to avoid it the best they can.
You took the words right out of my mouth original_robin. There are just somethings that even though they are negative, are inevitable. They have existed for a long time and will continue to exist. People commit crimes for a myriad of reasons. Some may want wealth, power or recognition. Some because of peer pressure, family issues and religion. We can’t take care of everyone’s family issues or eradicate peer pressure completely. Imagine going house by house and giving each family a free family counselling session. There are just sometimes that particular situations cannot be prevented completely. We should also prepare for future occurrences right? We can’t just let our guard down because if we do, when an event which we are unprepared for arises, it will not be easy to take back control.
I strongly agree with the statement you made "These root causes, and more, are almost impossible to eliminate so why waste time trying to prevent crime".
It is completely impossible to fully eliminate the causes and factors that make people commit crimes, a good example like stated by you is poverty.
Poverty is a reigning problem in most developing countries and can lead people to commit crimes. It is impossible to eliminate property but rather it can be reduced.
Therefore, I believe that the government should put more resources into what can actually be full eliminated which is the unsafety of the people.
90% should be for protection and 10% should be for prevention. One of the major functions of government is the protection of the lives of their citizens and the proper guarding of prisons can contribute to this.
I think the government should spend 70 percent in preventing crimes and then probably 30 percent on protecting people from crime.
I said this because as the normal saying goes that prevention is better than cure.
So the government should concentrate more on the things to do in order to inculcate in the citizens on how to be a good citizens which will make them to be free from crimes. For example, the government should establish a standard education were young people will aquire some morals.
Through education I strongly believe that the rate of poverty will also be reduced, because I think that one of the reasons why some people engage into some of this illegal business is because of poverty and lack of education, so when people get educated, they are been uplifted of poverty and they get to have more opportunities to get new and well paid jobs.
In conclusion, the government should spend more money on the things that will help to prevent crimes and not to prevent people from crimes.
It's great that you emphasize prevention over intervention! do you believe there are potential challenges or criticisms that might arise with this approach, and how would you address them?
I choose to prevent crime. The best way for the governments to keep their people safe is by preventing crime. Here are few steps how to prevent crime :
1.Education and Awareness: Governments can invest in education programs that promote awareness about crime, its consequences, and how to prevent it.
2. Social and Economic Development: Addressing the underlying social and economic factors that contribute to crime is crucial. Governments can invest in initiatives that promote economic development, job creation, affordable housing, and access to quality education and healthcare. These measures can help reduce poverty, inequality, and social exclusion, which are often associated with higher crime rates.
3. Rehabilitation and Reintegration: Governments can prioritize rehabilitation and reintegration programs for offenders to reduce recidivism rates. Providing access to education, vocational training, mental health services, and substance abuse treatment can help individuals not to do crime again.
I think government must spend their most money in preventing crime because I think preventing is better than protecting. If they prevent crimes there are no need to protect people from crime.
Some great points raised, do you think the majority of the population in your country would agree? Or do you think some people like the punishment aspect of crime protection using prisons for example?
Yes, I think the majority of the population in my country would agree to the state that government must protect crimes to keep people safe. The main reason of doing crime in my country is unemployment. If the government create job,does economic development, affordable housing and healthcare then the people would do less crime. Vocational training, mental health services can also help to prevent crimes.
Some good ideas thank you for sharing, I like that you have thought about why people commit crimes and I agree economic struggles are a big reason why people turn to crime. Great suggestion of vocational training and mental health services too!
In my opinion I think, Prison is a form of operant conditioning (a positive punishment), as it serves as a punishment with the idea that it will be a deterrent from committing crimes in the future. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn't a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Retribution certainly includes elements of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, but it also ensures that the guilty will be punished, the innocent protected, and societal balance restored after being disrupted by crime. Severity refers to the length of a sentence. Studies show that for most individuals convicted of a crime, short to moderate prison sentences may be a deterrent but longer prison terms produce only a limited deterrent effect. In addition, the crime prevention benefit falls far short of the social and economic costs.
Hello.
From my perspective, preventing and protecting people from crimes are salient strategies to maintain security and safety...
High rates of crimes in the community can have major consequences and harmful impact on businesses, tourism and property values...
Preventing a crime means taking measures to stop it from happening in the first place. There are several approaches that can be used to prevent crimes, for instance:
1) I believe that addressing economic and social inequality is one of the best ways to prevent crimes, as providing and promoting equal access to health care, education and other resources can decrease the occurrence of the crimes.
2) Education:
Teaching and explaining to the children and teenagers that they can solve their problems by talking things out without fighting and raising hands. Also, the communities can make self-defence classes, which will help to prevent the crimes and the individuals will be able to protect themselves.
3) Community policing:
Building strong relationships between the governments and the communities can create a sense of unity, trust and cooperation.
And much more...
Protecting people from crimes is essential for several reasons. To begin with, it ensures well-being and safety of the individuals of the society and it will maintain social order. If there's safety in the environment, people will live their life without having any fear and feeling anxious, also it will help to build trust and justice system...
In conclusion, both prevention and protection are important aspects of overall efforts to reduce the number of crimes and maintain public safety...
If the government has money to spend on people safety: I think that they have to spend 60% of the money on preventing the crimes, for example: to provide high level of education and the other 40% on protecting people from the crimes...
Greetings.
I voted to prevent crime. The government should spend 80% of money on keeping people safe and left 20% should spend on protecting people from crime. Government can play a crucial role in reducing crime. Crime needs to be prevented to make human feel secure.
Government should create well-targeted programs: Program selection should be located in hotspot areas and focused on the population group most likely to commit and stop the violent, youngsters of 10-29 ages should be given more care and focused by the government because in this generation, youngsters are the only people who are trapping in the crimes. The risk factors for why these young men get involved in criminality also needs to be clearly diagnosed and complemented with a treatment plan that involves the family and community. Preventing crime is the best way to reduce it. Giving the youth in your area more things to do is a great way to help them stay on the right track. It is important to address the root causes of crime and to work together to create a safe and wonderful environment for everyone. Government should launch awareness program to reduce a crime. As government should give more focus on prevention.
As we all know that Prevention is better than cure.
Thank you.
I voted to prevent crime, my reason for choosing this is because if the government only protects its citizens from crime the crime rate won't drop but remain the same, and this is not the aim, what the government is looking for is the peace and unity that they need, preventing crimes is the best way to achieve this, preventing crimes leads to the fear of the law, most people who commit crimes are getting what they want, my reason for saying this is because they want to inflict a civil war on the country. Terrorists and gangs want the government to fight because their aim is to break the country, some gang leaders do this to distract the government from dealing with their dealings.
Thank you for reading and I hope for a more peaceful earth without conflict, violence and fear, know that the other point listed is also important, but I would have to go with this one.
Hello everyone,
I voted "protecting people from crime", my reasons are People would be people no matter how hard the government tries to prevent crime and take measures to prevent crime, people would always device methods in which they can use to get what they want, how they want it, and when the want it.
The best thing is to do is to find ways to protect the people from the crime, even though I am not saying government should not try to prevent crime, I am just saying that protection of citizens from crime is more effective.
For example, 'FITO' that has just escaped from prison, government tried to prevent him from escaping to the extent that he was put in the prison with the strongest security, but as I said, humans would always be humans, he still found his way to escape. Now, it is left for people to protect themselves so that they do not get into any trouble and the enforcement of stronger security by government would go a long way in protecting people.
Each state should have its own strong security at territories and then people take their own personal steps to protect themselves.
I disagree to your points because if
FITO has started his life by planning a future and developing a career for himself he would have become a successful man and never involved in such criminal act . So therefore, if government focus solely on spending money to protect people against crime without addressing preventive measures may lead to a reactive rather than proactive approach prevention efforts such as education community program and social support can contribute to long time crime reduction while excessive reliance on protection may result in increase cost and strained resources without addressing root courses. Balancing protect both protect and preventive strategies is crucial for a comprehensive approach to public safety.
In above alternatives , I choose prevent the crime. Crime is gradually extending in this world . It's not only in out world also in technical world crime like cyber crime is multiplying day by day .Protecting people form crime isn't the throughfare to figure out the root of problem . If the problem isn't prevent totally it's remissible to halt the crime . So, Crime should prevent in the way that it won't reborn which would be the sustain way for being relief from the crime .
It's very interesting that you mention cyber crime. Do you think methods for preventing cyber crime differ from those working to prevent other types of crime? What are some ways governments and communities can work towards preventing cyber crimes?
Hello, Henrietta@ The Economist.
Cybercrime is any illegal activity that involves or targets computers, networks, or digital device.
Cybercrime can have different rationale, such as making money, stealing data and useful information and damaging systems.
These days cybercrime is a very concerning issue in our community, and it is caused by the development of technology which criminals can manipulate and use it to commit crime.
However, the government could take the following steps to eradicate cybercrime in the community:
-Use of full-service internet security suite.
-Use of very strong passwords.
-Keep your software updated.
-Be cautious of suspicious emails and messages.
-Educate yourself and others.
-Using firewalls and anti-malware and anti-virus tools.
-Providing rigorous, ongoing training and awareness initiatives.
-Developing national cybersecurity strategies.
-Conducting capability, risk, vulnerability and impact assessments.
These are just some few ways government can help tackle and combat cybercrime.
THANK YOU!!!
Making our places better and safer is something we all want. Adding more police can helps stop crime from happening. Supporting youths and showing them the right path is crucial. Looking out for each other lessens trouble. Education or teaching about what's right and wrong is a shield against crime. So if we all work together, we can make our individual communities more safer for everyone.
😊😊😊
I feel that the best way for governments around the world to keep people safe is to prevent crimes. Even though I feel that even if hundred criminals have to go free not one innocent should suffer, this would be possible if the Government prioritieses security of people rather than preventing crime. But tell me one thing, isn't it crime that leads to suffering and insecurity of general citizens. If a hindered criminals are actually set free wouldn't the one innocent suffer.
Wee need to dive deep into that statement. The truth is, just like some plants can grow back if they are cut from the stem, crime can succumb a criminal easily, for the plant to die completely, the roots must be destroyed; just like that if people are to be kept safe, the root cause of the problem must be eradicated. That is why I feel that the Government should focus on preventing and eradicating crimes and that would automatically lead to the safety of people
It's interesting that you draw an analogy between crime and plants, emphasizing the importance of addressing the root causes rather than just dealing with the surface issues. How would you define the "root causes" of crime, and do you think they vary in different communities?
Hello Divya,
I would like to share my thoughts on the “roots” of crime. These include a variety of underlying factors such as poverty, limited educational opportunities, unemployment, dysfunctional family environments, mental health issues, substance abuse and cultural influences. This intricate web of circumstances may prompt individuals to engage in criminal activity. It is important to note that the importance of these factors may vary from community to community due to different social, economic and cultural contexts. Identifying and understanding these specific factors in a given community is critical to developing targeted and effective strategies to address and prevent crime at its source. Developing interventions that target the unique challenges of each community is critical to promoting lasting reductions in crime and improving the overall well-being of residents. Moreover, creating a safe and supportive environment is essential for individuals to flourish and reach their full potential. Without such an environment, people encounter significant obstacles to their personal growth and development. Recognizing the importance of a nurturing environment that is non-threatening and conducive to well-being becomes critical. By prioritizing safe and supportive spaces, we not only empower individuals to overcome challenges but also lay the foundation for their overall growth. Essentially, providing a safe and supportive environment is vital to unlocking the potential of individuals, allowing them to flourish and contribute positively to their communities.
I feel the root cause of crime is the situation a person is going through.
It can be unemployment, financial conditions, families, et cetra.
The main cause is probably the urge to provide not just for yourself but also for your family. When you have a family to support and not much you can do about it it probably drives a criminal to do wrong, illegal activities.
This is obviously not same for all of them and varies from community to community.
A person with not much resources and towards the lower classes of society might not be able to help it; but a fit, well to do person is filled with greed and that is just the root cause for him.
It may also vary culturally and religiously and on the basis of family and upbringing.
Crime is an illegal/unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority. Blackstone defined crime as an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it. The people who get involved into criminal acts belong to different categories such as, they may be educated or uneducated, may be wealthy or impecunious in dejected and poverty-stricken conditions, they are engaged completely different sorts of occupations such as, white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, minority jobs such as manual work or may be unemployed. The predominance of crime is frequent in all the societies, whether it is rural or urban societies. It has been observed by many people that a society without crimes and criminals could be a paradise.
It is therefore fundamental to find out techniques/methods to avoid crime, at all costs if possible. The method of prevention ought to begin from the early childhood and continue till adolescence and youth. It is vital to execute crime prevention techniques, there are certain points that have to be compelled to be understood when the government is observing crime prevention techniques. These are all the levels of the government ought to contribute a leadership role. What we need today, is small measures and initiatives taken by the government and concerned State authorities that can help us reduce the criminal activities throughout the nation. Many people have suggested the youth employment, creation of job opportunities, providing more recreational outlets, and enhancing a sense of togetherness as measures to prevent crime at the community level. Cyberspace is a new domain for violence. This ranges from the use of social media to project force (videos showing assassinations, torture, threats), to recruit would-be members of extremist groups (digitally savvy marketing campaigns, online chat sites), for selling product (deep web), and also for more banal but no less important forms of intimidation and coercion (bullying). Violence is going virtual, and we need to get a much better handle on all of this. We have cyber security cells but they don’t function properly and report offences, it is important for the government to address this issue.The government should try to restore the faith of general public in the justice system. This can be done by making it easier for different members of the society to approach the police and to register a complaint against any wrong done to them. Moreover, the government should come up with laws and legislations that will give proper police protection to the whistle-blowers, the witnesses of criminal cases and other who report offense. With help of such initiatives people will be able to report the crime fearlessly and without facing any unnecessary repercussions. The government and especially Ministry of Law should take up initiatives to educate the younger members of the society and to teach them to be good citizens. We need to educate the youth how not to become victims of cyber bullying and other prevalent offences. The government plays an important role in reducing the criminal activity in the action and they should take small steps towards the same and play and proactive role. They should focus more on preventing crime rather than protecting people from it. If there are no crime in our society people will be already safe. As we all know that ''Prevention is better than cure.''
I think we all should think about this.
The optimal allocation of resources between preventing crime and protecting people from crime depends on the specific circumstances, priorities, and needs of the society. However, a balanced approach is often considered effective. A general guideline could be to allocate a significant portion of the budget, say around 60-70%, on crime prevention measures. This might include investments in education, community programs, mental health services, and addressing root causes of crime.
The remaining 30-40% could be allocated to protective measures such as law enforcement, emergency services, and ensuring a robust criminal justice system. Striking a balance between proactive prevention and reactive protection can contribute to building safer communities in the long run while addressing immediate security concerns.
I disagree and agree with this statement.
I disagree for this reason, preventing crime is already protecting people from crime. For example, if a man is walking down the street and steals a person bag and the officer runs and gets the bag not only did he protect the person from crime, but he also prevented the crime. This statement is made because at first the man used in the example was stealing, but in the end did not steal anything because he was caught and everything was returned. Also the man used in the example may still be detained and later punished, tying back to what I said "at the end of the day he didn't do anything. Which means the Crime was prevented.
As for agreement, It is a pretty good idea to have a proportional amount of resources from stopping crime and protecting people from crime. The amount of resources that should be used for prevention/protection should be according to measurements. If in a certain area crime prevention is reasonable because of certain reasons then prevention should be used. If it is the other way around to the point where protection works best, then use protection. At the end of the day though everyone has to realize that there isn't enough police force in general to protect every person with a problem in general.
In Nigeria, the main cause of most social vices is unemployment of the youth. If the government can provide more employment opportunities for the youths, I think the rate of criminal activities will reduce, hence, the government will not need to use money to open more correctional facilities and revenue will be generated for the government through the employment opportunities that were created.
The allocation of funds for crime prevention and protection is a complex issue that depends on various factors such as the country’s crime rate, the nature of the crimes committed, and the government’s priorities. However, according to a fact sheet released by the White House, the Biden-Harris administration has announced a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to gun crime and ensure public safety.
The strategy includes preventative measures that are proven to reduce violent crime and attacks the root causes, including addressing the flow of firearms used to commit crimes. The strategy will use the Rescue Plan’s historic funding levels and clear guidance to help state, local, territorial, and tribal governments get the money they need to put more police officers on the beat, in addition to supporting proven Community Violence Intervention programs, summer employment opportunities, and other investments that we know will reduce crime and make our neighborhoods safer.
I think preventing crime is the best way for governments to keep.people safe. We don't need to be led to crime if we are appropriate educated and the government has imposed a fair legislation. From very early age, we need to be educated with values such as respect, equality that could prevent people from criminality. It's a long way, though
Hi @inspired_lake, can you explain what you mean by governments imposing fair legislation to prevent crime?
As I said educated about laws and values is the key to prevent crime. Also, fair legislation can be set as a good example to evey country. Unfortunately we have seen that in some countries this is not the case. For example, Equality is not the same in all the countries. In some the role of the woman is still questionable, in others children are used from a very early age as workers.
These kind of things could be avoided with laws that promote fairness.
I went with option A because I believe that educating young people about the dangers of engaging in criminal activity and increasing public awareness are better ways for the government to reduce crime. By doing this, security risks will only be lessened or eliminated, preventing a threat from ever occurring. The rule should be for the government to allocate roughly 70%.
The most effective approach for governments to keep people safe involves a balanced strategy that combines both preventing and protecting from crime. Investing in education programs, social support, and addressing root causes can help prevent crime by addressing its underlying factors. Simultaneously, allocating resources to open more prisons and employing more police officers enhances protection by maintaining law and order. The ideal allocation of funds may vary based on specific societal needs, but a balanced approach, perhaps allocating a significant percentage for prevention and a substantial portion for protection, would likely yield the best results in ensuring overall public safety. Striking a harmonious balance between preventive measures and law enforcement efforts can create a comprehensive safety net for communities.
A balanced approach to ensuring public safety involves recognizing the interconnected nature of crime prevention and protection. Initiatives to prevent crime through education programs, social support, and addressing root causes are crucial for long-term effectiveness. By investing in these areas, governments can address the underlying factors that contribute to criminal behaviour, ultimately reducing the likelihood of criminal activities.
Simultaneously, allocating resources to protect people from crime is essential for maintaining immediate safety and order.
hello
I choose protection because it is impossible to completely prevent crime in the world, so it will be better and it will be favorable to prevent and regulate the effect of crime on the society
HI,
I feel that the government should enforce laws to prevent crime, because when we can stop crime from happening there will be no need protecting people from crime because there will be no criminal activities happening once there are no criminals to cause damage to the people and the country or states.
I think the government should focus their attention on preventing crime rather than protection. It is important that we prevent an individual from committing their first crime or becoming a reoffender. To be able to understand how to prevent crime from originally happening we need to understand why people commit crimes and what we can do to make them stop. For instance, some people commit crimes such as robbery because of their low income and need money, so as a last result they start stealing to keep them and their family alive. To prevent this sort of crime you can begin charitable organisations that help support these families.
It is also important to focus on rehabilitation, like Norway, to help stop people from committing to another crime. Sometimes it can be difficult to stop that first offense but it is crucial to help the offenders understand what they have done wrong and how they can fix their actions. This can be done through group sessions where people who have committed the same crime can talk to one another, or through one on one therapy sessions with a trained professional.
What do Norway's rates of reoffending tell you about their approach? Is it more or less successful than the alternatives?
Norway's reoffending rate is at 20 percent, which is much lower to the UK's where those who serve sentences over 12 months have a 63 percent reoffending rate. This proves that their methods around rehabilitation are working compared to other countries alternatives that revolve around punishment. Their prison system has both prisoners and their security guards taking part in either fitness or yoga, this helps with calming them and making them feel as if they are part of a community. This method of treating prisoners like human beings has proven to be effective with their crime rates being significantly lower than the rest of the globe.
You have mentioned some statistics here - which sources did you use?
I agree with accurate_outcome that the president and government ought to endeavour to ensure the safety of the nation's population by curbing criminal activity and creating jobs that enable individuals to sustain their families. They should also show their inhabitants kindness by meeting their fundamental needs; as we all know, poverty is a big contributing factor to crime, therefore doing this will significantly lower the crime rate. I think the government should focus half of its efforts on preventing crime in the country. People shouldn't have to worry about their houses or the safety of their families if there is less crime .
I have chosen choice 'A' because I think the government can use all of its resources to reduce the crime rate among its citizens by providing avenues like educational aid programmes that teach and educate the public about moral behaviour. Assume that our society has a reputation for having a high rate of youth theft. If the government decides to address this behaviour after closely examining it and discovering that most youths steal to pay for necessities, it can then direct a large portion of its resources towards prevention efforts by providing families with access to these items.
prevention is better than cure they say this statement goes a long way in telling us the key to a crime-free society is prevention rather than protection which has been the main focus of our government because in our society today people have lost faith in law enforcement agencies because on numerous occasions they have proven to be indifferent in carrying out their duties.
therefore allocating more funds to prevention should be the major focus of the government; the government can commence this by choking criminal activities i.e making the environment pernicious for criminals this can be done by implementing the use of surveillance cameras in public places and most especially places located outskirt of town where criminal activities are likely to take place, another way is by increasing the standard of training security personnel who can be depended upon not only in terms of strength but also in moral authority because law enforcement agencies only have power not moral authority because if we are to conduct a survey way may come to realise that the only reason people do as these agencies say is because they have the power to punish them, the respect that people had for these officials have gone down the drain because they have failed to carry out their duties effectively so the training of these personnel should not only lie in the test of strength but also in their ability to work despite troubles, to revive this trust the government should adopt community based programs to enhance the interaction between these officals and the general public , this can be a platform where the public get a chance to discuss with them and tell them in which aspects they seem to be fumbling, the law enforcement agencies also have chance to explain to the public why they do what they do.
prevention can also be achieved if there is an improvement in social programs if the government decides to invest in programs like healthcare, employment training, and education the government is paving the road to success for individuals who ordinarily would not be able to afford such necessities. if everyone has the opportunity to lead a good life then the likelihood of criminal activities becomes thin. this can be a platform in which the government can gain the trust of the public. if welfare programs like a poverty eradication scheme are carried out it will provide opportunities for people to ascertain financial assistance, especially in times when they have gone through major setback, these programs are aimed basically to render a helping hand to people during tough times
I think 40% may be allocated to crime protection to ensure a rapid and effective response to criminal activities. this includes investing in programs and initiatives that address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and social inequality. A balanced approach that incorporates both prevention and protection measures is generally considered effective in promoting overall safety.
I guess the leaders in the equador would must have learnt a lesson when it comes to betrayal. They should be more security concious and be able to scan or detect all prison guards for any attempts of betrayals. This is very important because it Is one of the mediums that Feto must have used to escape the prison cell.
I chose preventing crime because it is better for crime to not even happen that makes the world safer. The government are already trying to protect people from crime but that doesn't protect them from the murders and robberies that happen. People in the world have been murdered but we were told that the government was taking measures to protect us, so their protection is failing. If we take measures to prevent any crime happening, the crimes will not slip between the few cracks of the government's protection.
I believe prevention of crime is better than protection from crime because, if you prevent crime lives may not be risked but if you try to protect crime many lives will be at risk so is better you stop the crime than to fight it this is my opinion.
I think government can only protect people by preventing crime. You cannot protect everyone from crime. No matter how much you tighten security, there will always be some part that you miss, some people that you cannot protect. The best way to eradicate something is to remove it from it's root cause. There's a famous quote by Bill Gates that says "Treatment without prevention is unsustainable". How long do we expect to keep 'curing' the world every time it falls sick due to crime? Protection can only carry us so far.
The government need to destroy crime, instead of pushing it back through a wall. Once it starts preventing crime throughout, lesser and lesser and people will be exposed to the risk of suffering due to increased crime.
I also believe that Preventing Crime will one day eradicate it as a whole. The more we prevent it, the more it'll reduce. Preventing Crime gives us the hope that one day, we will manage to curb it as a whole.
While preventing crime is something that seems a bit far - fetched, we CAN do it, by ourselves becoming responsible citizens. Let's try to steer ourselves away from crime. Let's try to teach our peers and our children the same. Let's try to educate everyone we think is at a risk of turning to crime. Let's be the one sufferers can rely on. I think we are the only ones who can PREVENT Crime, by becoming the most powerful allies of crime prevention.
I voted to prevent crime because as they say, "prevention is better than cure". Crime is caused by various factors like poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and other factors. I feel that a government should focus on reducing the rate of unemployment and poverty in an economy which will in turn prevent people from diving into the world of crime. If a government endeavors to prevent crime then there would be no need for them to waste time and resources in trying to protect the citizens from crime. When citizens are educated they know what is right and wrong and have more access to things that would improve their lives but if people are illiterates then they don't have the skills to get a good source of living and might end up turning to crime as a savior from poverty. If government prevents crime there would be no one to commit them therefore no need to protect people from crime. Nowadays, governments just want to go around arresting criminals instead of dealing with the root cause, which is attending to things that lead people into crime.
A government's responsibility to ensure citizen safety necessitates effective allocation of resources for crime prevention and protection. This essay examines the importance of balancing spending between preventing crime and protecting people from it.
Crime Prevention:
Investing in crime prevention strategies is essential to address the root causes of criminal behavior. Initiatives such as education, community outreach, and social welfare programs can discourage crime, break the cycle, and foster a safer society.
Protection from Crime:
Allocating resources for protection measures, including law enforcement, emergency services, and the justice system, ensures immediate safety, upholds the rule of law, and instills trust and confidence in society.
Therefore a balanced approach is crucial, with around 60% of government spending on crime prevention and 40% on protection measures. However, these percentages should be regularly reviewed and adjusted based on evolving needs and challenge.
A government must allocate resources between crime prevention and protection measures to create a secure and just society. Striking the right balance ensures both addressing the root causes of crime and immediate safety concerns, fostering a thriving society for all.
Thank you!
I gave my decision by choosing "preventing crime", because the second option was about protecting people from crime, which means that crime will still be going on, but the government are just trying to protect people from the evil deeds of a human. Crimes are illegal so if the government tries to protect people, it means crimes has to end before they begin to protect pedestrians, that is why I chose option one, because it talks about preventing crime.
The government should focus more on preventing crime than protecting people from crime because as the saying goes prevention is better than cure. Prevention of crime should be up to 70% of awareness such as educating them on the dangers and consequences of terrorising the citizens which can cause death and undeveloped due to the high rate of crime. While the remaining percentage which is 30% should be used to protect the citizens because the law enforcement agencies cannot protect all the citizens of the country due to the over population of the world or country due to high birth rate.
My opinion is for the government to focus more on prevention than protecting due to all the resources that might be wasted because of a little mistake.
Hi, i had a difficult time choosing but i chose that the government should focus on preventing crime. The reason for this is becuase i think that if you want to solve a ongoing issue you need to go to the root cause to fix it, and so by preventing crime we eliminate the need to protect others from it. and by preventing crime we ensure the safety of citizens and make sure that the problem is solved before it's able to negatively affect others, and this makes sure people don't have to constantly be on the edge worried about if they are going to get caught in between crime.
Hey guys,
I do think crime prevention and public safety are two crucial aspects for any government.The distribution of funds in this regard depends on various factors like the prevalent crime rate and available resources.But what if I told you that investing in prevention programs can lead to a significant reduction in crime rates? Yupp,you heard it right..Studies have shown that community-based prevention programs can reduce crime rates by up to 50% and education and job training programs can reduce recidivism rates by up to 40%...Therefore, I believe that the government should aim to strike a balance between preventing crime and protecting people from it...My suggestion would be to allocate around 60%-70% of funds towards prevention programs like community policing, education, and social programs to bring awareness. The remaining 40%-30% of funds could be directed towards protecting people from crime through measures such as law enforcement, emergency services, and victim support programs...i fell it's also time for the government to start allocating funds towards victim support programs as well.After all, prevention is always better than cure...Thank You!!
Well done for using evidence to back up your argument but it's important to cite your sources. Where did you find those statistics?
Hi Harriet,
I apologize for not citing my sources properly...I found the statistics on the official website of the Bureau of Justice Assistance...However,I wanted to clarify that my actual source is The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)which is a research,development and evaluation agency of the U.S. government...The Department of Justice has conducted studies that highlight the effectiveness of community-based prevention programs in reducing crime rates as I stated these programs have shown to be capable of reducing crime by up to 50% and community-based prevention programs are all about engaging with local communities and providing resources and support to individuals and families...The aim is to create a sense of social responsibility and cohesion so that everyone is working together to prevent problems before they occur...these programms manage the underlying reasons for crime and help prevent it from occurring in the first place...'Recidivism' refers to the tendency of offenders to re-offend after being released from prison or jail...NIJ also added that education and job training programs have been shown to reduce recidivism rates by up to 40%..These programs help people who have been in trouble with the law to learn skills and get knowledge so they can find a job and become good people in society...When they do this,they are less likely to get into trouble again and end up back in prison...Thank you for reminding me to always cite my sources and provide evidence to back up my arguments!...
PREVENTION!!
this is where by government increase security measures.
Providing social programm such as education and employment training.
Although Both prevention and protection are necessary to keep people safe, as they address different aspects of safety. Prevention measures aim to prevent harm from occurring in the first place, while protection measures aim to minimize harm when harm is imminent or has occurred.
Prevention measures are crucial because they can help to identify and address risks before harm occurs. For example, installing smoke detectors in homes can prevent fires from spreading, and teaching children about safe behavior around strangers can reduce the risk of abduction or exploitation. The goal of prevention measures is to reduce the incidence of harm and create a safer environment.
Protection measures, on the other hand, are important for responding to situations where there is a risk of harm or when harm has occurred. Examples of protection measures include emergency medical services and shelters for victims of domestic violence or natural disasters. The goal of protection measures is to contain and manage harm, to prevent further harm from occurring, and to ensure that those affected receive the necessary care and support.
In conclusion, both prevention and protection measures are necessary to keep people safe, as they address different aspects of safety and work to create a safer environment. A holistic approach that combines both prevention and protection measures is often the best way to ensure that individuals and communities are safe and protected from harm.
Determining the allocation of resources for preventing crime versus protecting people from crime depends on various factors including the specific needs, priorities, and circumstances of the society in question. While there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer, governments typically aim to strike a balance between prevention and protection efforts based on available resources and risk assessments.
Here's a general perspective on resource allocation:
1. **Preventing Crime:** Investing in crime prevention initiatives such as education, youth programs, job training, mental health services, substance abuse treatment, community policing, and social interventions can address root causes of crime and reduce its occurrence. Prevention efforts aim to address underlying social and economic factors that contribute to criminal behavior.
2. **Protecting People from Crime:** Allocating resources for law enforcement agencies, judicial systems, emergency response services, victim support programs, and surveillance technologies can help protect individuals and communities from crime. These efforts focus on apprehending offenders, enforcing laws, ensuring public safety, and providing support to crime victims.
While there's no fixed percentage for resource allocation, it's essential for governments to adopt evidence-based approaches, prioritize strategies with proven effectiveness, and involve stakeholders in decision-making processes. Additionally, investing in data collection, research, and evaluation can help inform resource allocation decisions and improve the efficiency and impact of crime prevention and protection efforts. Ultimately, the goal is to create safe and secure communities while addressing the underlying factors that contribute to crime and victimization.
Hi!
In my opinion, I think it's better to prevent crime than to protect from crime because if we prevent it, we won't need to spend money in protection because there wouldn't be any delinquency.
Protection it's something that every government should take into account if they want to ensure for the security and life of the citizens. Governments should have more systems of security in order to avoid conflicts. If we have a great security system, we would improve in some aspects such as education because there wouldn't be any conflict in the classes and there would be more time for teaching. Also in transport, because we would save time if there aren't conflicts and we'll arrive earlier at jobs (with the benefit of sleeping more too and performing better at jobs because we won't need to leave home so early). Or in health, because there won't be no theft of health materials and there would be more medical standards because the care would be better an more efficient.
Also, security and protection in technology would be important in order to improve people's mental health and privacy.
In general, security and protection would improve the life and the mental health of people, because if there are less problems, the number of bad situations would decrease and it would be easier for us to feel well and happy.
However, less protection and security would be enough if from childhood kids (us) were educated in values and with the principle of respect and education towards the world.
World would be better, safer and more protected if people respected others.
The best way of protecting us is respecting the others.
I got 11/15 .. I want to express that one piece of information from the quiz that could change someone's mind about prisons is the high rate of recidivism among ex-convicts, highlighting the ineffectiveness of punitive measures alone. This statistic underscores the need for rehabilitation-focused approaches within the criminal justice system to break the cycle of crime.
Determining the specific percentage allocation between preventing crime and protecting people from crime is a complex decision that depends on various factors including the existing crime rates, societal needs, and the government's overall. This what I think for a balanced approach:
Preventing Crime: Allocate a significant portion, perhaps around 60-70%, to preventive measures. This might involve investing in education, community development and more.
Protecting from Crime: Allocate the remaining 30-40% to protective measures, such as law enforcement, emergency services.
This balanced approach aims to address the root causes of crime while ensuring the safety and well-being of the population through responsive measures. The actual percentages may vary based on the unique needs and priorities of the society in question.
Thank you.
This is a good answer, but I want to understand more about what you think. Why would that balance work? What examples can you give to illustrate your point? This answer sounds like AI could have helped you to write it, but I want to know more about what hopeful_analysis thinks!
In my opinion, prevention is the best remedy. I will recommend that government spend 70% of the money on crime prevention. The common saying "The journey of a thousand miles, begins with a step", I will say in my own way that "The journey to a criminal life begins with a single act of crime". Who knows maybe if Fito hasn't committed a little crime he wouldn't have become a public nemesis in Ecuador today.
If governments should educate the youths of their country on the dangers of living criminal life. It will help the youths of the country to realize that a life of crime doesn't pay.
This will prevent the youths from indulging in criminal activities, which will help them live a peace life and not a criminal life.
Also, government can prevent crimes by improving the economy of their country. In some countries today, due to their poor economy, many of their citizens has move into a life of crime just because they couldn't afford to fend for themselves and their family due to inflation in the prices of goods. So, if the economy of the country is improved, it will prevent the rate of crime in the country.
The remaining 30% of the money should be spent in protecting people from crime. Because if nobody commits a crime, there won't be need for protection against crime. Therefore, these money should be spent on providing the resources needed by security operatives to apprehend criminals and when they are caught they should be counselled on how to be a better person in the society.
In summary, preventing citizens of a country from participating in crime by educating them, would help reduce the rate of crime in the country.
Interesting ideas, do you have any other ideas about how the Government can help crime prevention?
I also think government can prevent crime by advocating for an improvement in family systems. The family is after all the primary social institution and many cultures translated to the larger society are offshoots of the family. Many people today became criminals due to their poor family system. This is because their parents don't pay attention to their welfare which could lead them to make friends that indulge in dangerous activities, which could influence them. Also, children whose parents fight violently would tend to act violent while communicating with peers.
Therefore, if government improves the family systems by creating counselling organizations who advise parents on how to improve their behaviors in the home so as not to influence their children into the life of crime, crime will be prevented in the society.
i believe prevention in crime is better if you are protected it helps but people wont have
to experience things that are tramatising for people . preventing it from never
happening and never viewing things that could scare you for life is better than seeing than being protected from it
I feel that the government should spend 50% on educating younger ones on how to be good people and also teaching them respect, kindness, strength, self-esteem, determination etc. We can also teach self‐control or social competency skills using cognitive‐behavioral or behavioral instructional methods. School discipline management policies and practices are also very important. Then the government should spend the remaining 50% on building more prisons because, there are many dangerous people out there who have to be put behind bars and also the fact that prison overcrowding is a problem. New prison facilities should be built to handle the larger volume of inmates and alleviate overcrowding problems. As crime rates across the nation increase, demand for bigger prison facilities also increases. So in essence everything is important.
I think they should spend more money on prevention rather than protection. Just as the saying goes "prevention is better than cure." It is better to prevent bad things rather than trying to stop bad things when they have already begun.
To conclude my point, it is better to more of the money to prevent rather than spending more of the money to protect.
Hello!
From my perspective, I don't think that we can say we should focus on prevention better than cure or vice versa. As human beings, we have that innate thirst and desire for more and this has its advantages in helping us develop ourselves and improve our quality of life as well as its disadvantages. In a topic in Economics I did in school taught by my principal I learnt something "As Humans we have limited resources but we have unlimited wants."
Bringing this to the context we can't say we will eliminate crime when we still have people who are more rich and famous than others and even if there is equity we still have the innate passion which I believe is the reason for this whole topic. So what is the cure to this?
I feel that is what led "Fito" to escape from his prison cell. From the news I was able to gather on the internet and other reliable sources, I think we all agree that his criminal offenses were all to try and satisfy his needs and wants.So is this a bad thing?
On the other hand, if we say we want to focus only on the cure for these crimes, it means we will kick back and relax and only act when we hear news stories such as this before we say we want to act and try and protect people. I think it will already be too late and by the time we think of acting a lot of violence and killing will have happened.
I think the focus on prisons, the prevention, and cure of crimes is not the major factor in this for me I think it is the human factor that I have already stated above and until we can find a suitable solution to this I think we are still on the shallows of what is to come with the fast development of technology and the increase in crime rates all round the world. How can we stop or reduce this?
I think this can be stopped in various ways or forms such as teaching the younger generation reasons why they should not engage in crime, provision of the basic human rights and neccesities among others
Fill free to share other opinions about this and I hope you see it from my point of view.
Thank You!!!
In my perspective governments should focus more on preventing crime ,this actually is the ideal solution as no one is born a criminal instead it is their upbringing and circumstances that they go through which forces them to be one. Hence, the governments should make sure that each citizen receives proper education, upbringing and don't become a victim of harsh poverty as these all are generally the main reasons for a good citizen to turn into a criminal. Governments should also focus and spend their resources on rehabilitation programs for the criminals who have committed minor crimes as they still might have a chance to go back to their normal life and never repeat the same mistake ones their imprisonment/punishment gets over. However even with all its might governments still can't stop or change every criminal and hence it should spend a solid 30 percent of its money on protecting people from crime and 70 percent to prevent people from becoming criminals. This is my take on the topic and I would love to hear your opinions too.
I think government should focus more on preventing crime. I think crime can be prevented if we are able to address the root causes such as lack of education, poverty, economic instabilities etc. We can link education institutions with social organisations to reduce the chances of crimes. Education should be provided to people from their childhood because it will help individuals to develop crucial skills such as problem solving skills, critical thinking, decision making, and reducing the risk of engaging in criminal behaviour. Individuals should be provided with life skills and conflict resolution training. Equiping individuals with skills for managing anger issues, communicating effectively and solving conflict peacefully will help to reduce engagement to violence or crime. Plus social support is also important. Providing a person family support, friends support and support from community for any good work they do will also help to reduce crime.
I believe the government should allocate a higher percentage of its budget to crime prevention rather than solely focusing on protecting individual from crime.
Addressing the root causes such as poverty and inequalities is crucial the government should provide free education to both privilege and under privilege ,youth can empower them to contribute positively to society.
Education not only impact knowledge but also shapes character.
Additionally, schools should incorporate extra curricular activities including gender talks and emphasize moral values warning about the consequences of criminal action both in terms of government punishment and divine repercussions.
Implementing this measures can potentially reduce the need for extensive spending on crime protection.
I personally believe that preventing crime should be a top priority of the government and can be achieved through a combination of education programs, social support, by trying to find the cause of criminal behavior. By providing opportunities, proper resources, and supporting nations systems, we can authorize each & every individuals to make positive choices regarding unwanted activities, reducing the engagement in criminal activities. On the other hand protecting people from crime is also important, to prevent criminal activities and creating a safer & better society !!
I chose prevention because prevention is basically stopping the problem before the problem can affect the world/ people or stopping the problem before it becomes a problem.
I picked protecting people from crimes even though i do agree with preventing crimes. Educating people on crimes and their dangers is a really good thing to do and it will make the society safer and peaceful. Yet, no matter how much awareness is spread there are some factors that just make people turn to a life of crime. Crime is anything that is wrong from stealing to even terrorism. It doesn't mean that the criminals we see today weren't educated on the dangers of crime. People can be educated on why crime is bad but sometimes they may find themselves in situations where crime is the only way out. For example when someone is really broke and can't get a job they may resort to stealing, this doesn't mean they don't know stealing is wrong. Education might not always completely convince people. But if the government places their resources into growing their law enforcement agencies and building rehabilitation and correctional centers for the criminals, they may be able to reduce crime to a very exceptional extent. This does not mean that educating the public on the dangers of crime is ineffective. It is but at least there should still be another option on standby. I think protecting people from crime is more important because crime can be seen everywhere, whether serious or trivial.
I totally get where you are coming from. I know that you feel like prevention will not go a long way but it actually can. The trick is to catch them when they are young. Children accept lessons and new ideas very easily, which means if we instill the values in them now, they will grow with it. It will become a part of them. As for the present wrong doers, they should be taken to correctional centers. If we train the younger generation then the future crime rate will be reduced drastically.
I appreciate your comment rhetorical_goat, but i do not agree with you completely. What you said about catching them young is true. You can easily teach kids lessons when they are young. But future circumstances can change how they think don't you think? Some children might learn that stealing is extremely wrong but when they grow up, they begin to steal because they are in dire need of money. We can't always foresee every situation that may occur in the future. Everyone grew up learning that crime doesn't pay and yet not everyone grew up to be good citizens, some turned to a life of crime. Have you ever stopped to ask why? This is because situations can change a persons mindset and erase whatever they were taught in the past. I think that protection from crime will have more effect because there are some situations that we cannot escape no matter how much we try to prevent them.
I think the government should spend more than 75% on preventing crime and 25% on protecting people from crime. Because if we can prevent the crime completely, then we don't need to protect people from crime.
The government should tactically spend their resources to prevent the crime. Instead of building prisons, the government should spend the money in building restorative justice, which is an alternative system that says everything can be solved through peaceful conversation. The government should also spend money on building restorative economy, where people irrespective of their past record will be able to work and earn their livelihood. The government has to improve the economic conditions of the people s that no one can commit crime for fulfilling their needs. The government also need to spend money on education system so that the younger one can build themselves as a good citizen and prevent themselves from wrong doings. If we can teach the children honesty from childhood, it will be a lot easy to prevent crime. The government should also spend 10% of the fund in healthcare. Government has to ensure the proper healthcare of the citizens so that they can earn their livelihood by themselves. The government should also spend 10% fund on women's empowerment so that the women never become the victim of oppression and torture. The government has to implement the proper rights of male and female.
While enacting police officers, the government should choose carefully the honest people. Because an honest people is far better than 10 dishonest people. The government should spend money in the training of the police and also make them a role model for others. This is how a government should focus more on preventing crime.
Hi,
From the two options I personally chose protection from crime. See in our current society crimes are being occurred at an alarming rate. In my perspective this is mainly caused by the differences in nature, race, status and fame among the members of a community. Although I want crimes to end and all people to be in harmony its currently not possible. In this developing society there will always be a fortunate and always be an unfortunate person. This causes either harmony or greed and resentment against and among the other. Due to this one of the people will often commit a crime and unfortunately most people that commit these crimes cannot be turned back through the power of words that social support and educational programs often convey.
Therefore, the only way to keep the order of peace among any community, society, country actions that protect people from crime must be ensured. As Martin Luther King Jr said, "Peace is not merely a distant goal, but the journey we take toward a just and safe society." Hence, the way to attain harmony among all in a society and be crime free is only through protection of people from crime.
Thank you.
I think the government should focus on prevention more. I agree with the famous saying: Prevention is better than cure. It is better to prevent a situation than to rather wait to find a solution to it. So, in this case, I think the government should prevent crime than to rather try to protect citizens from crime. If the government does not prevent crime and waits for crime to develop and now focuses on protecting citizens, at the end at least one life will be lost but if there is no crime it equals to no death.
Thank you!😀
Yes, i am in full support of the motion ''Prevention is better than cure'' but the fact that the government decides to protect their citizens from crime doesn't mean they are going to allow the crime to happen first. Try to be more open with your thoughts. To protect means to preserve or guarantee by means of formal or legal measures. In a broader sense, "protect" can refer to actions taken to ensure the safety or security of individuals, communities, or assets. This might involve implementing security measures or policies to prevent harm so, you can see that in the process of protection, you prevent. Try to look at protection as the main body which encompasses prevention so, picking protection is more like ''killing two birds with one stone'' hence, i'll go for it.
I disagree with you. In my opinion, I am being open about my thoughts unlike what you said. Prevention brings protection. Like I already said, prevention is not letting trouble come but protection is letting trouble come then try to fix it. Of course, prevention brings protection. I acknowledge the fact that you said: but the fact that the government decides to protect their citizens from crime doesn't mean they are going to allow the crime to happen first. But it is simply just better to stop it from happening.
It's important to say when we disagree and explain why - but make sure you're being as respectful as possible in your tone.
Like jazzed_ocean, I believe that prevention is preferable to treatment because, in most cases, criminality begins in childhood and occasionally even in high school. Because young people, especially preteens and teenagers, are becoming involved in crimes including stealing, robbery, kidnapping, and using illegal narcotics, we must take steps to prevent crime.
I believe that 70% of government funding should go towards preventing crimes. One way to do this may be by teaching students in schools and other institutions how to prevent crimes. To contribute to a more peaceful society, it is equally critical to educate parents and address the problem of stress in young children.
Crime prevention involves strategies to reduce or eliminate criminal activities, while protection focuses on minimizing the risk of harm and victimization. I believe the government should prioritize prevention, as addressing the root causes can reduce the need for subsequent protection measures. However, allocating funds for both prevention and protection is crucial.
In terms of resource allocation:
Educational Programs (40%): Initiatives like campaigns, social media awareness, and school programs are crucial for providing information to individuals. Allocating 40% of resources to education supports crime prevention by empowering people to seek help, report incidents, and gain a broader understanding.
Social Programs (30%): Allocating 30% of funds to programs like charity, poverty alleviation (e.g. Operation Feed the Nation in Nigeria), and youth engagement is essential. Addressing social issues, particularly poverty, diminishes the root causes of crime, providing citizens with stable livelihoods and occupations.
Security of Neighborhoods (30%): Allocating 30% of resources to measures like surveillance systems, neighborhood watch programs, and security features contributes to overall safety. While these measures lean more toward protection, they also play a preventative role in enhancing community security.
In my opinion preventing is better than protection. If the government has money to spend on keeping people safe they should spend 75 percent on prevention and the 25 on protection. This will increase the safety of first responders so that they don't have to risk their lives that often and so that young offenders don't throw them away. However, protection is still important since crimes will still happen and people need protection. Prevention still is better at preventing crimes and sending people to jail. All in all, prevention is better than protection because it saves people's lives, prevents injuries, and make sure young people don't lose their lives over a minor misdemeanor.
Can you say why you have chosen those percentages?
The reason i decided on choosing 75 percent for prevention and only 25 percent for protection is because prevention matters more. 75 percent is the majority of the percentage and prevention is more expensive for protection. I chose 25 as the percentage for protection because crimes do eventually happen. In my opinion 25 is not too low and it's just enough to make a difference.
I agree with this because if crimes are not occurring, people will not need to be protected as much. For example, if there are fewer robberies in the world fewer people are getting threatened and harmed so it is kind of like a cause-and-effect chain and prevention is the cause so I believe it is more important.
Thank you.
I chose to protect people from crime. I chose this because you cant stop crime all at once. If you think about it's better to protect than prevent because there is always gonna be that violent non caring person in the world. I think the government can do other stuff to protect like upgrading house windows and doors so no one breaks in. You can't just put the whole city in jail and call it a day you have to actually protect them.
I voted that the government should prevent citizens from crime. There a lot of ways that the government can do this
here are some of the ways:
Create more job opportunities
Enlighten Citizens on the danger and consequences of Crime
Increase Security Measures e.t.c.
Citizens should not be idle so that the would not find any avenue to engage in crime as the saying goes "an idle man is the devil's workshop"
Prevention is better than cure. It is better to curb something than to wait for it to happen and start looking for ways it to happen and start looking for a way to cure it.
How do you think these ways could help prevention?
i picked that the better way for the government to protect us is by using resources that will help protect people from crime. i think that this is a better way because if you think about it schools and adults are taught us to grow up that it is not ok to hurt others, and that we have to be kind to each other. Yet, we still have a high crime rate. I still think that schools should talk about it and spread awareness. but i think that there are so many people that need help so why not use those resources to protect those in need. If we have more police we can have more help on the streets especially neighborhoods with higher crime rates. i think that it's good if we have support groups but at the end of the day there is still going to be crime out there so might as well get more help instead.
The government should focus more on both of course since they are both equally important. However, the government should pay much more attention to preventing crime because then there will be no need to protect people from it. As it has been proved crime is in people's nature and as a result it is impossible to completely bring it to an end.
Protecting crime by, for instance, structuring more penal institutions an unpleasant ambiance will be created followed by a feeling of unsafety which will obviously not contribute to solving the problem overall. On the other hand, protecting people's lives is essential.
In addition, preventing crime should always be taken into consideration. Organizing proper education programs on how they can keep away from harm is certainly a way of improving the situation.
I believe the government should put the prevention of crime at the centerpoint of their use of resources. The prevention of crime would lead to less crimes, which would decrease the need for protection from crime. I believe that 60% of the money kept by the government should be spent on prevention of crime. The money should go into buying more resources for schools to teach students about how to prevent crime and why. I also believe the rest of the 40% should go into protection from crime. Though prevention of crime would lead to less crimes and the decrease of the need for protection from crime, I still believe the government should put effort in expanding resources for the protection of crime and spend money to improve what is needed to protect people from crime. The protection of crime is important because though people are going to learn about the prevention of crime, it is very unlikely that everyone is going to stay obedient to what is said.
In my opinion, I believe that there should be equal effort to prevent a situation whereby things would get blown out of proportion. This means that I believe that the government, if given the opportunity and resources, should spend 50% on the prevention of crimes and 50% on the protection from crimes.
The reason I say this is because, if the prevention of crimes doesn't work out, we can't just leave offenders to roam around saying that " We tried our best to prevent this and now we don't have enough money/resources to protect the peole."
We also cannot put in all our efforts into protecting the people from crime, because this will only encourage the crime rate will only increase. Without actually letting someone know what they are doing is wrong, we might be too late to the point where their beliefs are irreversible simply because there were no preventive measures taken.
In conclusion, in order to achieve a balance and to have a plan b when things get out of hand, I believe there should be equal input into both the prevention and protection of the people.
The best way for governments to keep people safe involves a balanced approach. Prevention measures, such as education programs and social support, can address root causes, while investments in law enforcement and prisons play a role in protecting citizens. Striking the right balance is crucial, but a hypothetical allocation might involve a substantial percentage for prevention, emphasizing long-term community well-being, and a strategic portion for protection, ensuring immediate safety needs are met. The specific percentages would depend on the unique circumstances of each society.
Personally, I have voted on the pole that prevention is more important than protection. This wasn't a difficult choice because we have sufficient evidence to know that most criminals commit crimes due to their disadvantaged backgrounds and systemic differences between them and the rest of the population. When we focus on prevention, we focus on the root of the problem, thus decreasing the number of crimes significantly. However, I for one believe that there is one more notion to be brought to this question, that of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, in most cases, is one of the most effective methods we have to fight against future crimes committed by previous inmates. Many of the most dangerous inmates often hop in and out of courtrooms, always making mistakes without the necessary support mechanisms to reintegrate into society. If we only focus on prevention and protection, we will not have a way for helping inmates who have served their sentences to be rehabilitated, for everyone's safety.
To respond to the challenge I believe that the funds should be distributed in this way: 40% should be allocated to prevention methods such as investing in the economic development of poor neighborhoods or educational programs that foster awareness at a young age, 30% should be allocated to protection methods such as investing in security cameras for metropolitan areas or supplying prisons with better equipment and resources for improving efficiency. Finally, 30% of it should be allocated to the rehabilitation process. Some inmates have a hard time finding jobs after prison, so job offers or professional courses could be an option for them as well as full psychological support for as long as they need it.
Hey Kim! I totally get what you're saying. It can be tough for governments to decide how best to keep people safe. Personally, I think a balanced approach is important. Allocating resources towards both preventing crime and protecting people from crime can be effective.
Prevention is key because it focuses on addressing the root causes of crime and creating a safer environment through education programs and social support. By investing around 60% of resources in prevention, we can raise awareness, promote mental health, and teach important values like honesty and kindness.
However, we also need to ensure that there are enough resources allocated to protecting people. This includes having adequate law enforcement and opening more prisons if necessary. I would suggest allocating around 30% of resources to protection.
The remaining 10% could be used to invest in schools, as creating awareness among students is crucial for a safer future.
What do you think? How would you allocate resources for prevention and protection? Let me know!
I just had a discussion with some of my peers and I came up with a brilliant idea as talked below:
I disagree with protecting the crime because an adage says ''Prevention is better than cure'' Crimes can best be prevented by the the following listed below.
.Deter crimes by making accountability certain, not making it severe.
.Invent in social programmes and poverty reduction programmes to address the root of crimes in the society.
In my perspective, prioritizing prevention is a more effective approach, considering that prevention itself is a form of protecting people. However, determining the allocation of resources for preventing crime versus protecting people from crime should be flexible, depending on the unique needs and circumstances of each community. Universally applying a fixed percentage is not feasible, as different areas confront distinct crime challenges and priorities. A holistic public safety strategy entails finding a balance between crime prevention and response. Prevention initiatives encompass community outreach, education, social programs, and addressing the root causes of criminal behavior. On the flip side, safeguarding people from crime involves law enforcement, emergency response services, and a visible police presence. Pinpointing specific percentages necessitates a careful analysis of local crime data, community input, and a deep understanding of crime factors in the area. Collaboration among community leaders, law enforcement, and policymakers is crucial to develop a comprehensive strategy that tackles both prevention and protection, tailored to the unique needs and challenges of the community. While there is no one-size-fits-all formula, I believe a balanced 50-60% ratio, leaning towards prevention, is key to creating an effective approach that enhances public safety and well-being.
Prevention is better than protection because from my point of view,if the government organizes programs that talk about crimes and their negative effect on the society,the rate of crime will be reduce because people will have knowledge on crime, its negative effects on the society and individuals.
I agree because... prevention is better than cure.
The government should concentrate more on the things that if they do it, it will prevent them from crimes and also the media should also play a major role in this issue, because they have the power to teach many people through either audio, visual, audio-visual, and so many other ways. When the media starts to educate people on how to avoid crime in the society and also let them know it’s effect and negativity, I think it will help in reducing of crimes.
To me I think government should focus on preventing people from crime because government cannot protect everyone from crime. If the government can open programmes to teach people to stay away from criminal activities and teach people about the consequences of crime it might reduce the amount of criminal activities that happen in our society. If the government can prevent people from committing crime it will keep civilians safe, educate other countries to follow us and do the same,eradicate crime from our society. To me if the government prevents crime there will be no use of trying to keep people safe with money becahuse everyone will be safe on their own.
I think that preventing crime is more important. If the government can prevent people from committing crimes in the first place, it will not only free up prison space but also allow the government to spend less on protection and more on important issues in the country- like healthcare. Also, some prisons can affect people's mental health and make them even worse than they were before. So, if they can prevent crime in the first place, there will be less people in therapy due to prison. However, I know that it is hard to stop people from doing criminal activity because not everyone listens to the law. But if there was a way, then I think it should be in place immediately.
The social supporter can help to people to prevent crime from their social work or from their social programs. Government are responsible for keeping their people safe and their people are responsible for keeping themselves safe from the crime.
Let's imagine a government has money to spend on keeping people safe.
There is a question what percentage should spend on preventing crime and crime and what percentage should they spend on protecting people from crime? If there is 100 percentage money they should spend 50 percentage on preventing crime and 50 percentage for
protecting people from crime
Hello, In my opinion, 70% of the money should be used to stop crime. When people learn why committing a crime is wrong, they're less likely to do it again. This would greatly reduce the number of crimes each year. The other 30% should be spent on protecting people, especially those without good security. This helps keep them safe from criminals who might want to harm them. So, most of the money goes into teaching people not to commit crimes and making our communities safer, and a smaller part goes into making sure everyone is protected. This way, we can create a better and safer world for everyone.
I agree with prevention of crime because if the government provides for the citizens they will be able to make their businesses grow and if that is done, prisons can be well developed and secured, so prisoners cannot smuggle in things like cell phones or be able to escape like Fito did, and the security officers should be well paid so they will not take bribe or assist the prisoners to escape and if they should escape, they will be a threat to the society or nation.
I think government should focus more on prevention because there are many reason. 1. The reputation of a country or area will be good if crimes are prevented but protection means already crimes are happening that would hamper the reputation. 2. Protection means we are only protecting not stopping this way crime rate will be same and prevention will stop everything from root so it will be much better. 3. Prevention will include educating the children which may increase quality of education and also ethics of future generations. So, in a way prevention will help us in other ways.
I would recommend upgrading the prisons so people cannot get out until time also I think that adding better weapons for guards as prison people are getting stronger as we speak so don't get rubbish prisons upgrade the original ones
Hello,
Personally I think that preventing crime is better than protecting someone from a crime because,
1. I think it's harder to protect someone from a crime instead of preventing crime because from studies it has shown that preventing crime lowers the risks of their being crime at all and if there is automatically no crime happening that would just be easier for protecting would need a lot more
2. Apparently it's cheaper to prevent crime from happening because preventing crime from happening would save almost 2 million pounds and that would help the government financially in education, buildings etc.
3. It's just safer for people and families If they know that they're going to be safe then they'll know for sure that it's not going to happen rather than getting stressed and being scared and it's just easier knowing that you're safe and you don't need to worry you'll be defended at all times and i just know that people would rather that.
Also coming on to another topic, I think the government should spend a percentage of 20% on protecting people because we still need to protect people in case of different situations but that specific number because think we need to spend more money on something we know might work because although people might be protected people still might die if not protected well enough.My thoughts about the percentage of money used to prevent crime is 50% because preventing crime is something I am positive works a high percentage of the time and as you know crime goes as a very serious thing and we need to prevent it so the UK and other countries are safer.
Thank you.
The government should prioritize the protection of people from crime . In a country filled with many opportunities crime is bound to happen in some way . The protection of innocent civilians is a very structure of not only a city but a nation. Protection is essential to development and growth.
I think that...
prevention is better than protection because if you prevent the crime no damage will be done and the government can spend the money on useful things. and i also thing that the government should use 50% on prevention 25% on protection and 25% and making sure that the crime doesn't happen, and also prevention is better than protection.
I believe that preventing crime through education programs and social support is a more sustainable and effective approach to keeping people safe in the long run. While the immediate protection provided by increased law enforcement presence and prisons can have an impact, addressing the root causes of crime can lead to more lasting results.
Investing in education programs that promote social and emotional learning, as well as providing social support systems, can empower individuals and communities to make positive choices. By addressing issues such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunities, governments can create an environment where crime is less likely to occur.
If a government has funds to allocate for keeping people safe, it is advisable to create a balance between preventing and protecting from crime. Allocating around 60% of the budget to preventing crime through education programs, social support, and addressing root causes, and dedicating the remaining 40% to protecting people from crime through law enforcement and correctional facilities would provide a comprehensive strategy. This ensures a holistic approach that not only addresses immediate safety concerns but also works towards creating a society where crime is less likely to occur in the first place.
Personally I believe that the government should put 80% of the money towards preventing crimes and 20% towards protecting people from crimes. The reason I chose those numbers is because I believe that by stopping as many crimes as possible there won't really be a reason to protect the people from crimes that aren't happening. I know that the government can't stop all crimes but I believe they can stop most. The more crimes prevented the safer the people. With the 20% going towards protecting the people, almost everyone will be safe. That is why I chose those number for stopping crimes and keeping people safe.
I believe that they should focus on preventing people as they are safe if there are less rude / bad people around. If you teach them to learn to not do it and the consequences of going to jail they will most likely not do it. That is why you prevent and not really protect.
Governments have a crucial responsibility to keep their citizens safe from crime. To achieve this, they can either prevent crime by addressing its root causes or protect people from crime by responding to criminal activity. While both approaches are necessary, they require different strategies and resources. And of these two I believe that prevention is more important, as the famous saying goes "Prevention is better than cure."
To prevent crime, governments must invest in education programs, social support, and community-based initiatives that address the underlying factors that lead to criminal behavior. By doing so, they can reduce the likelihood of crime occurring in the first place and create a safer society for all.
On the other hand, protecting people from crime involves ensuring that criminals are brought to justice and that citizens feel secure in their everyday lives. This can be achieved through law enforcement, the justice system, and other measures such as CCTV cameras and security guards.
To strike a balance between prevention and protection, governments should allocate a significant portion of their budget to both approaches preferably in a 70:30 ratio favouring prevention. By doing so, they can create a comprehensive and effective safety strategy that addresses the needs of their citizens. Therefore, it is crucial for governments to invest in both prevention and protection to ensure the safety and security of their citizens.
the government should focus on preventing crime . the government should spend 60% of their money , 10% for people protection and 20% needy problems. if they decrease crime the people will live save and secure.
I agree with prevention of crime because, if the government provides for the necessary things needed by the Nation they will be able to prevent any trouble or destruction in the nation, state or homes, so in future we will be safe from societal hazards or problems.
According to my own understanding the government should be able to reduce the case of unemployment and should be able to build a school or a place where Children or adult of the less privilege can stay so that the issue of criminal act could be reduced.
In the issue of Fito,i suggest that the government should increase the salary of the officers in other to avoid bribery, helping in sneaking in cell phones etc.
I agree with you because the main reason why majority of people engage into many evil act is because of poverty, and what gives birth poverty is unemployment and unemployment comes into someone’s life when he or she is not educated.
Also in the issue of Fito, I think the government should put into consideration of not allowing mobile phones inside the prison, because by the help of this mobile phone, even in prison he was still controlling and monitoring the activities of his gang.
I suggest prevention of crime is better than protection of crime because it is better to stop it before it happens because when it does it will be very hard to catch the criminal and the country will not be at rest. So the government should provide a place for prisoners to learn some certain things they need to know about being a good person. so i say that government should be able to educate everyone in the society because education is for everyone and they should be able to provide job opportunities
Personally, I believe prisons are about prevention. I believe this because punishment is there to prevent people from making the same mistakes. I think prison is a time for prisoners to learn and reflect on what they have done and to become better people. It also prevents them from committing more crimes. I think more work needs to be done on mental health in the country. I think most criminals have some form of mental problems and they aren't able to get the help they need. People are under a lot of pressure and this can push them to do unthinkable things. The government needs to look after their people and this is how.
I think it is more important to protect citizens from crimes than try to stop the crimes themselves. I think this because too much money is being spent on security that doesn't even work.
The most effective approach to keeping people safe involves a combination of both preventing and addressing crime. Prevention strategies, such as education programs and social support, aim to address the root causes of criminal behavior, reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal activities, and foster a safer society in the long term. These initiatives focus on creating a supportive environment that mitigates the risk factors associated with crime.
On the other hand, protection measures, such as having an adequate number of police officers and appropriate prison facilities, are essential for responding to and managing criminal activities that do occur. This aspect ensures that there are consequences for unlawful behavior, and it serves as a deterrent to potential offenders.
In summary, a comprehensive and balanced approach is crucial. Prevention strategies work towards reducing the prevalence of crime, while protection measures respond to and manage criminal incidents. A holistic approach includes addressing social determinants, providing education and support, as well as maintaining law enforcement capabilities to ensure the safety and well-being of the community.
I chose to prevent crime because why would you protect people from crime if nobody knows that crime is happening because it's been prevented. Most of it should go to schools because of intruder drills and I've seen some intruder drills and have experienced one myself. Not to forget about school shootings because mostly Intruders that have a gun could and would hurt people. But that can never happen. Do you want to know why? Because if the officers prevent crime from school shootings and Intruder drills could never happen. So to my conclusion I believe that if you prevent crime there's no need protecting people from crime.
I agree because Government can help keep people safe by preventing crime in a number of ways, like Increasing police presence,Designing spaces to reduce crime,Providing funding for programs,Creating job opportunities,Target hardening etc..
Prevention measures, such as education programs, social support, and community development, address the root causes of crime, aiming to reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal activities. By addressing issues like poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunities, governments can create an environment that is less conducive to criminal behavior.
I believe that focusing on prevention is crucial, as it not only helps in mitigating immediate criminal threats but also addresses the underlying societal issues that contribute to criminal activities. A proactive approach, centered around education, social support, and community development, reflects a commitment to building a resilient and harmonious society.
While protecting people from crime through measures like increased law enforcement and more prisons is essential, it is often considered a reactive approach. It deals with the consequences of crime rather than tackling its underlying causes. Moreover, solely focusing on punishment without addressing root issues may contribute to a cycle of crime.
In terms of allocating resources, I think that there is no one-size-fits-all answer, as the distribution may depend on the specific context and challenges faced by a particular community or country. However, a balanced approach is often recommended. Some experts propose allocating a significant portion of resources, perhaps around 60-70%, towards preventive measures. This may include social programs, education, mental health services, and community development.
The remaining percentage, in my view, could be dedicated to law enforcement, the justice system, and correctional facilities. This comprehensive strategy, combining prevention and protection measures, is likely to be the most effective in ensuring public safety and addressing the complex factors contributing to crime. I think that by fostering a society that emphasizes both prevention and protection, we can create a more just and secure environment for everyone.
Thank You!!!
I once heard this saying "prevention is better than cure" for me I suggest that the protection of crime would be more preferable to protection because when we prevent something from happening, we won't even brother ourselves in trying to find out a way to protect the citizens. And even in some cases we would no longer be able to protect the citizens again (this is happening in Plateau state, Jos, Nigeria.
But at the end of it all prevention will be more important to people in a country because when we try to protect citizens, we can easily make mistakes so prevention will be better than protection.
Hi!
In my perception,The most effective approach for governments to keep people safe involves a combination of both preventing crime and protecting people from crime. While investing in education programs, social support systems, and addressing root causes can help prevent crime in the long term, it's also essential to have adequate measures in place to protect people from immediate threats through law enforcement, emergency services, and judicial systems.
Preventive measures address underlying issues such as poverty, inequality, and lack of opportunity, which can reduce the likelihood of criminal behavior.
On the other hand, protective measures ensure swift responses to criminal activity and provide a sense of security for the populace. Striking a balance between these two approaches and allocating resources accordingly is crucial for ensuring overall safety and well-being in society. Simply opening more prisons or hiring more police officers may address immediate concerns but may not address the root causes of crime or promote long-term safety and social cohesion.
Thank you!!
A main and essential function of government is the protection of life of their citizens. The most effective way through which the government can ensure the safety of their people is through protection. Once the government ensures that criminals receive proper judgment in the court of law,prisons are properly and heavily guarded, employ more police officers and open more prisons the safety of the people can be ensured. And even they will be able to live comfortably and with a sound mind.
I am not implying that preventing would not make a difference however it may not be as helpful as proper protection, not every convict will change through educational programmes or social support. I believe its better safe than sorry.
So, if the government had money to spend on either protection or prevention, I would put 70% into protection and the remainder which is 30% into prevention.
There are a few reasons why prevention is better than protection. Firstly when it comes to crime. prevention can help to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of education, and mental health issues. Addressing these issues can make a real difference in reducing crime rates in the long term. Additionally, prevention can be more cost-effective than protection, as it can reduce the need for expensive prisons and law enforcement resources. Finally, prevention can help to create a safer and more just society, where everyone has the opportunity to lead a productive life.
In my opinion, prevention is better than protection. We all know that to cure any disease prevention is better than cure like wise in crime prevention is better than protection.
If government is focusing in prevention of the crime than it can be controlled easily if we let the crimes happen than it is very hard to controll the crime. Government should run different educational programs to prevent crime and the government should always focus on prevention. Prevention is the first step of controlling crime. So, the government should focus on prevention of crime rather than protection.
I strongly believe that prevention of crime by government is securing life more than protecting them because ;A man can not guarantee another's man safety,life and full protection.
Protection on it's one can not always be perfect, there is always a room for mistakes but prevention of crime has already evaluate the future situation.
Thank you
In the debate on reducing crimes, two ideas exist: preventing crime or protecting people from crime. Yet in my view simple steps by the government can make a big difference:
1. Bridge the wealth gap: help everyone access basic needs
2. Fight online crime: improve internet safety
3. Boost trust in justice: make reporting crimes easy and protect those who speak up
4. Stop financial crimes: go after those who commit money related offences
5. Teach youth: government-led initiatives to educate youth on being responsible and safe online
6. Promote harmony among groups: maintain a neutral stance to safeguard the rights of all groups, fostering unity and reducing potential conflicts
My response is a bit unusual but I feel that the best approach for governments to keep people safe involves a balanced combination of both prevention and protection strategies. While preventive measures such as education programs and social support initiatives address the root causes of crime and contribute to long-term societal well-being, protective measures such as increased law enforcement presence and efficient criminal justice systems provide immediate security and deterrence. By integrating prevention efforts with robust protection measures, governments can create a comprehensive safety net that addresses both the underlying factors contributing to crime and the need for swift response to threats. This holistic approach promotes community resilience, fosters trust in institutions, and ultimately enhances public safety for all.
I believe that prevention of crime is the best way for governments to ensure protection of its citizens. For example, investing in education and support programs will help people make better decisions, because this makes our societies more stable and secure.
Therefore, if a government has some funds for investments, I would say that they should spend about 70% of it in minimizing crime. It means we are not only repairing things when they break down, but also making sure they do not break. It’s like providing equality to all.
For the remaining 30%, they can utilize it for protection of people, such as deploying more police officers or prisons. However, the main emphasis should be on assisting people before trouble occurs.
I agree because... Prevention is better than cure. Government should use more of their funds to prevent crimes rather than protecting people that have been affected by crime. If crimes are prevented, the funds used for protecting people from crimes will also be reduced. If government should use most of their funds in preventing crimes, the people who are affected by crimes will drastically reduce. If people don't get affected much then the extra funds for protecting them can also used be for something else like developing the country.
One of major way in which government can prevent crimes is through law enforcement. Law enforcement can reduce the cases of violent crime. They can also reduce corrupt or violent organizations. Prevention is the best medicine. Another way of reducing crimes is the use of educational centres like schools. Schools should teach children the disadvantages of crimes. If children should start committing crimes it can increase crime rate. If children are well educated on the dangers of crimes, they will not commit them. Children are the future. If children are properly educated, there will be a future where less crime exists.
We need to bear in mind that education is the key for shaping opinions, values and ideas. For this reason I think that preventing crime can be instilled by lessons around laws, equality respect at school. If we ensure that from a very young age that these ideas are top priorities then prevention may succeed.
Additionally social support to citizens with problems like addiction, poverty and so on can prevent them from exclusion and they will fell more ready to adapt to society.
Hi,
I feel as if protecting people from crime is more effective than preventing it. Even if crime education programs are established at school, people may easily forget it as they get older and maybe disregard it completely. On the other hand, if you open more prisons and have more police out on patrol, more criminals will be caught and less crime will be out on the streets.
The government should be more focused on preventing crimes rather than building more prisons. Why? If they build more prisons, for one thing, that would be their focus and their work won't be centered of preventing crime and protecting their citizens. Another thing is that the people their putting behind bars are still the same people who can break out of prison. I think the more you put it, the more they can break out. So focusing on making sure crime is absolutely unacceptable is the key. But, if in peculiar situations or circumstances where prevention if crime isn't possible, then building fortified prisons with maximized security and actually making sure they stay in and preventing any means of loopholes for them to escape should work. I've also noticed, finally, that security cameras(well, most of them) have blind spots. Those are some of the loopholes the government needs to cover up and make sure to carefully watch the inmates in order for them to prevent any escape
I think preventing crime is more important than protecting people from crime because if you work on preventing crime that stops it before it happens making it less necessary to protect people from it. Sadly I think it is impossible to stop all crime so I think the government should also spend a little bit of time protecting people from crime. As for the budget I believe it should be 80/20 80% spent on preventing crime and 20% spent on protecting crime. I think with this budget the world will be a safer place with less crime.
From my perspective I believe that option b is the most important since the matter of the fact is that we live in a society that will always have dangerous people so it is important to keep the people that isn't doing the crime should be protector. For example if you have a person that is really dangerous you would focus on him but you have got more and different people just starting the crime so this proves that in our world there will always be bad people. So I think that you should protect the people that are innocent and are doing the right thing in our society.
I chose by protecting people from crime because in my opinion there are also a lot of people who are nice and safe there is the other side where people need to punished for the bad things they've done. Also there are a lot of kids who they can keep safe from all the danger and they should live peacefully and not have to worry about them and ruin their childhood. In my opinion they should have the criminals in a different place because if they end up doing something it will be easier to find them and it's something that will help us in a lot of different types of ways. Knowing this I can find that it is even easier to find these people and keep them in the prison which helps us.
The government should mainly focus on preventing crime. I saw this because there aren't that many laws that are about protecting people from other type of people. They should focus on this because it is much harder to protect people than to do other kinds of stuff that don't need attention. I would say that they should use up to 70% on resources towards these clubs or different kinds of community activities on mental health because on these days many people are struggling because there are lots of crimes happening now days. On protecting people they should take at least 40% on it because there are lots of people buying dangerous stuff that they don't need. I know that there is already a law that they should sell this stuff but I don't think a 18 year old will be aware of using these types of stuff.
From my point of view, the percentage the government would have to spend on preventing crime would be 70% and 30% on protecting people from crime. The reason why I believe this ratio would be good is because if you don't have to focus on crime in the first place, then you wouldn't have to protect people from said crimes.
When it comes to keeping people safe, governments have to decide where to focus their efforts. It's like choosing between two main strategies: preventing crime or protecting people from crime. I chose B
Imagine you're in charge, and you have money to spend on keeping people safe. The best way might be to focus more on protecting people from crime. Let's look at what President Nayib Bukele did in El Salvador as an example.
I chose Bukele as an example because he faced a situation where there was a lot of crime and people felt unsafe. Instead of only trying to stop crime from happening in the long run, he took quick actions to protect people right away. This meant having more police officers on the streets, using the military to deal with gangs, and making sure criminals faced consequences fast.
Choosing protection is like making sure there are enough police officers and prisons to keep communities safe. It's about acting swiftly when there's a problem, so people can feel secure.
One downside of Nayib Bukele's way of keeping people safe/ more police presence/ Choice B is that it could lead to some problems with how people's rights are treated. By having more police and using the military a lot, there's a risk that the government might not respect everyone's freedoms and privacy.
For example, having too many police or military around might make it feel like there's not as much freedom, and people might feel like their rights are being ignored. It's important to find a balance between making sure everyone is safe and making sure everyone's rights are respected. But that's the price to pay for safety
Of course, preventing crime through education and social support is important too. But when there's an immediate safety issue, like in El Salvador, focusing on protection makes a lot of sense. It's like fixing a leak in a boat first before thinking about how to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So, if we had to decide where to spend money, it might be smart to use about 60-70% of the safety/support budget for protecting people. This includes having more police and improving the justice system. The rest, around 30-40%, could go to preventive measures like education programs and support to stop crime in the long run.
In the end, even if I chose B, A Is still an equally important choice it's about finding the right balance – taking quick action to keep people safe now while also working on ways to prevent problems in the future. That's how governments can do their best to make sure everyone feels secure in their communities.
I think the best way to protect people from crime is by protecting them from crime.
Though we can reduce criminal activities, crime cannot be prevented. Their are many socio-economic reasons why people commit crime. Some do it to take revenge, while others do for personal benefits or to eliminate competitors.
We cannot stop it. That's impossible. Wherever there are laws against crime, there are many to break it too. So I think that by opening more prisons, improving their condition and by employing more police officers we can protect people. At the same time, we should work on improving the condition of the citizens, so that the criminal activities can be reduced.
In my opinion to prevent the crime is more important to protect peoples from it. Because if we will protect always then the money or currency for protecting will end at one time. And if the persons are gradually being criminals it can also be said that the criminils will also damage the safekeeping gadgets or if police is keeping safe than the police life may also be hermed. So its more important to prevent the crime than to protect from the crime. So in prevention 80% currency should be used. And we know never 100% is good. If a thing is good atleast 1% or 2% of it will obviously be bad. So for that 1% or 2% we would use the rest 20% currency to protect the citizens.
Thank you
I feel like the government should focus on preventing crime. Preventing crime is a two-in-one solution. Preventing crime can help protect crime from people. When crime rates are low, many people would want to move there. Doing this will help a city, county, and state economy. Many people, especially parents with kids, would want to move to a place with low crime rates. With the economic boost, a state can focus on public services like schools, parks, and roads. Crime is a dangerous thing, and the government has to focus on crime for the benefit of their reputation/community.
I strongly agree with your point as I also think that prevention is a lot better than cure.Like it would be so much easier to protect the people if crime rates are low.
Safety and security represent many things, including a stable income, consistent housing, clothing, and food supplies as part of the predictability of daily life, protection from crime, and psychological security.
Greetings,
In my opinion ,I think that both prevention and protection is important for the government to keep the citizens safe. Not only the government but also the people should focus on preventing at first because we all know that prevention is better than cure/healing the damages.The government or people should hold different programmes and make people aware to not commit or stay safe from crimes. Only prevention is also not enough. The government should also focus on protecting the people as well by doing things like taking right actions on crimes as soon as possible . But I believe that prevention is a way better option as there sometimes may not be enough enforcement or police officers or money to heal the damages.
In super developed countries like Japan, their engineers could develop crime fighting machines. In other countries they could establish more institutions dedicated to fighting crime. There could even be a secret government agency that will be solely made for the purpose of crime prevention. The topic of crime prevention is very serious, that is why I am writing about this.
Thank you.
I chose the answer "By preventing crime" as the best way for governments to keep people safe. I chose this because its better for crime to not exist rather than protect the people from crime even though people are still committing crimes. For example, if someone is born during a period of time where the government is protecting people from crimes but when they grow up they find out that people are still committing crimes, they might be influenced to ignore the rules and commit crimes.
Hi @kind_situation, interesting ideas. Why might a person be influenced to 'ignore the rules and commit crimes'?
I disagree with you on this idea of prevention vs protection. Personally I believe that it is more important to protect people from crimes than try to prevent them. If we focus on improving our police force and cctv then it may lead to less people doing crime because they are too scared or now have a greater fear of being caught.
Hiring more police officers may be expensive but it would lead to safer communities and consequently happier people and a happier society.
I think they should do 30% in preventing crimes and 70% on protecting people from crime
For the 70% on protecting people from crime I think the best way to keep people safe would be for them to try there best to train police,swat,military,etc to the best they can and keep people on standby at places like store arcades movies and any place people go for entertainment because there is not enough at some places to keep them safe. So overall I'm just trying to say the best way I think the government can keep safe is for them to keep highly trained people at different places to make sure innocent people don't get hurt.
For the 30% on preventing crimes they could upgrade cameras and add more cameras also upgrade fire walls so hackers can't hack into peoples bank accounts and by the time someone almost gets through it people who work the field to stop hackers would be able to stop them.
As much as prevention and protection are both incredibly essential in ensuring a safe and non- problematic community, in my opinion, protection seems like an aspect police should spend more time working on.
Yes, it is great for a class of students to learn about things like legal behavior and how to not end up behind bars, but rebels exist and are very many. Some people may hear the consequence of their illegal, possibly only- self beneficial, actions and not even care about it because there really is always a way out.
Indeed, the police are very intelligent and have found ways of using technology to get suspects and even solve crimes, but criminals are criminals, and they're minds will always continue to find that way out.
So therefore I feel like protection is necessary, because prevention, will not eradicate crime. It may reduce the amount, but crime will definitely continue and when it does, we need to be assured safety.
There are also people out there who do not care about how their crime may affect others. For example, a teacher could explain to some people why they should not steal from one another, saying "imagine how the person would feel" and some students may sympathize. However, some honestly won't. Caring for others is a lovely privilege to have, to be able to admit you're wrong and be humble. But people who aren't affected by the emotions of others they may even be related to, will definitely not care about a random stranger or two who may be affected.
Crime can also be committed by people with the motive of revenge, and even though it may be taught not to take your anger out on someone for something they did to you before, revenge is one of the most common reasons for crime. There is a case from Serbia, where a thirteen-year-old boy killed eight of his schoolmates, and even his own teacher. He had been planning the attack for possibly a month. Apparently, he was quiet, nice and had good grades but it has been assumed his reason for shooting was revenge on some and others were just in the way.
It really is very important we prevent crimes from taking place, but when they do happen, police should be able and ready to take action at any time, in order to protect citizens of the nation. Thanks for reading.
In my opinion prevention is better than protection.Think about this,will you rather prevent HIV/AIDS or prevent it.In my opinion,this applies to crime,the government should take preventive measures against crime rather than trying to protect citizens from the negative effects of crime.
Hi @straightforward_king, can you give examples of how the government could take preventative measures against crime?
1.Investing in social programs that address the root causes of crime, such as poverty, inequality, lack of education, and substance abuse.
2.Implementing community policing strategies that foster trust and cooperation between the police and the public, and that focus on problem-solving and prevention rather than enforcement and punishment.
3.Enhancing the criminal justice system to ensure fair and speedy trials, adequate legal representation, humane prison conditions, and effective rehabilitation and reintegration programs for offenders.
4.Promoting a culture of respect for human rights, diversity, and the rule of law, and educating the public about their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
5.Strengthening the capacity and accountability of law enforcement agencies to prevent and combat corruption, abuse of power, and human rights violations.
Hello,
The percentage of resources spent on crime prevention versus crime protection is a hotly debated topic. On one hand, some people argue that it is more important to prevent crime in the first place, as this will lead to fewer victims overall. They believe that spending money on social programs, education, and poverty reduction is the best way to prevent crime. On the other hand, others argue that it is more important to focus on protecting people from crime, even if it means spending more money on police, prisons, and other crime control measures. The truth is that both prevention and protection are necessary, and the optimal balance is likely somewhere in between.
The question is how best the government shall keep people safe while weighing on two sides - that of preventing crime and the other of protecting people from crime. Both have some merits, and usually an effective strategy includes a combination of prevention and protection measures.
1- Preventing Crime:
Educational Programs: The investment in educational programs could help to strive against principal causes of crimes, as either social ones such as poverty or living conditions or the lack of opportunities.
Social Support: Some social needs, mental health services and community resources may help to prevent crime by dealing with the fundamental issues likely to cause criminal activities
2- Securing People from Crime:
Law Enforcement: Aid to law enforcement through raising the number of officers and the quality of training procured points out providing resources to respond to and deter immediate threats to public safety.
A way of ensuring offenders accountable for their deeds is to strengthen judicial systems, including setting up legal processes that are fair and running in an efficient manner.
When it comes to the budget as a single allocation that demands an action for all communities, there is no such answer that will suffice since this entirely depends on the situations and challenges faced by each community. Yet, a balanced action plan is often advised. One common guideline suggests that perhaps around 60-70% of the work might be to prevent crime, and roughly 30-40% would be aimed at protecting people from it. In this regard, it is important that a large focus on addressing the root causes as well as creating and enabling environment can be kept while not short-changing resource needs for the law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
Lastly, there is a need for flexibility and evidence-based. Adaptations should be done on the programs and policies, based on regular evaluations of how effective they are in order to ensure that what is provided as resources give the right returns as far as ensuring citizens' security is concerned.
Balancing the allocation of resources between preventing and protecting from crime is a complex task for governments. While both prevention and protection are crucial elements of ensuring public safety, finding the optimal balance depends on various factors, including the specific needs of the community and the effectiveness of different strategies.
Investing in crime prevention, such as education programs and social support, can address root causes and contribute to long-term safety. These initiatives may include programs targeting at-risk populations, improving economic opportunities, and fostering community engagement. By addressing underlying issues, governments can reduce the likelihood of criminal activities.
On the other hand, allocating funds for protecting people from crime involves measures like increasing law enforcement presence, enhancing technology for surveillance, and constructing and maintaining correctional facilities. These efforts are essential for immediate response and maintaining order but may not address the underlying societal issues that contribute to criminal behavior.
The ideal percentage allocation for crime prevention versus protection is contingent on the specific needs and challenges of each community. A balanced approach that incorporates both prevention and protection strategies is generally advisable. For example, a government might consider allocating a significant portion of funds (perhaps 60-70%) to prevention initiatives, aiming to address the root causes of crime. Simultaneously, the remaining funds (30-40%) could be allocated to enhancing law enforcement capabilities and correctional facilities to ensure a swift and effective response when prevention falls short.
Ultimately, a comprehensive strategy that integrates prevention and protection measures is likely to be the most effective in creating a safe and secure environment for the public. Regular assessments and adjustments based on the evolving needs of the community are essential to refining and optimizing this balance over time.
Balancing the allocation of resources between preventing and protecting from crime is a complex task for governments. While both prevention and protection are crucial elements of ensuring public safety, finding the optimal balance depends on various factors, including the specific needs of the community and the effectiveness of different strategies.
Investing in crime prevention, such as education programs and social support, can address root causes and contribute to long-term safety. These initiatives may include programs targeting at-risk populations, improving economic opportunities, and fostering community engagement. By addressing underlying issues, governments can reduce the likelihood of criminal activities.
On the other hand, allocating funds for protecting people from crime involves measures like increasing law enforcement presence, enhancing technology for surveillance, and constructing and maintaining correctional facilities. These efforts are essential for immediate response and maintaining order but may not address the underlying societal issues that contribute to criminal behavior.
The ideal percentage allocation for crime prevention versus protection is contingent on the specific needs and challenges of each community. A balanced approach that incorporates both prevention and protection strategies is generally advisable. For example, a government might consider allocating a significant portion of funds (perhaps 60-70%) to prevention initiatives, aiming to address the root causes of crime. Simultaneously, the remaining funds (30-40%) could be allocated to enhancing law enforcement capabilities and correctional facilities to ensure a swift and effective response when prevention falls short.
Ultimately, a comprehensive strategy that integrates prevention and protection measures is likely to be the most effective in creating a safe and secure environment for the public. Regular assessments and adjustments based on the evolving needs of the community are essential to refining and optimizing this balance over time.
By the question allocating funds for crime prevention and protection from crime is really important in the context for the nation. In my opinion putting around 47% of the budget towards crime prevention, like community policing,awareness program,social services,youth programs and education programs,can be a good starting point of government to invest. And then, putting approx 53% for protecting people from crime, including law implementation,emergency services for citizens, and victim support, can be a good balance for the gov to invest in for the sake of the betterment of society. But of course, these percentages can vary based on the needs of the diff community.A holistic approach for this fund allocation can be a good starting point.
Thank you !!
I chose protecting the people from crime, I believe the best way is for the government to be a servant to the citizen. The government has to employ more police officers and ensure that domestic laws and their implementation are consistent with international Human rights. They also have to open more police stations and equip the police officers with the necessary equipment and even welfare packages.
I disagree because... in my point of view , the best way to stop something is never to let it start . I do not feel that there will be a point of allowing something to start when we will plan to stop it . It could lead to waste of resources / materials on criminals . It could also relief / ease police departments of their duties thereby making the environment more conducive for living .
THANK YOU .
I the police and Government should make ads to keep their people safe. I think this topic should be talked about more often as it is not usually spoken about . People should make sure they are safe by doing simple things to prevent and protect themselves from crimes like: Close and lock all doors even when leaving for a short period of time. This includes garages and connecting doors.
Use automatic timers to cut lights on and off if you are gone for an extended time.
Illuminate the yard, especially doorways and the rear of the house.
Trim trees and shrubs around the house. These provide concealment for burglars.
Install good locks on doors and windows and USE THEM. Don’t hide keys in mailboxes and planters or under doormats.
It needs to talked about more, get people's attention like ads, posters and an article in newspapers, schools, the workplace and communities need to spread awareness. The police fore need to be more ready and focused and ready than ever to catch criminals including special forces in Ecuador.
I agree that prevention is better than cure. As crime prevention plays a crucial role in creating a safer and more secure society and also minimizes the risks and the impact of crime on individuals, communities and the nation. The crime prevention is the goal to decrease crimes and increase the security. I believe that there are many different ways to prevent crimes.
I think we should start with children , they should learn about consequences of violence. In addition, educating children on how to deal with conflicts without using force. Teach children that bullying is wrong and help them learn to say no to bullies.
Second, better to establish community standards that reject violence and other crimes and this is one of the ways to strengthen the communities and also social media community pages can be used to raise awareness of consequences of crimes.
Third, reducing poverty can be related to crime prevention because when your needs are met this is less need to commit crimes. Having relationships can improve our characters from falling through the cracks and going down a bad path.
Let's come to job and trainings, I think there in a connection between jobs and crime , at least they don't seem to increase violence, so social and emotional skills must be integrated into employees training.
I know it sounds silly, but I believe that nature puts mind at ease, so people can be encouraged to start a community garden and cultivate green spaces and young people like us can host an event to volunteer and get rid of the litter and plant something new.
In my view , better prepare people to return home from prison. A goal without a plan is a wish , so people should leave prison with a plan with facilities such as a place to stay and a way to get started to return to a healthy way of life . As being said, "Teach man to fish , feed him for his life".
Lastly , I see that it is better to stop something from happening before it happens instead of having to repair it or deal with its consequences.
In my opinion, I strongly believe that they should be a balance between both the percentage spent on preventing crime and the one's spent on protecting people from crime.
Firstly, it actually depends on whether the crime rate is much or not but then again should the government really wait for the crime rate to become crucial before the government actually takes strong actions concerning it, as the proverb goes "prevention is better than cure". If the government initially prevents this by looking into areas that actually causes people to cause crimes factors like poverty, neglect, low self-esteem, some people are at risk of offending because of their circumstances.If these areas are developed I strongly feel that there'll be minimal need on the percentage spent protecting people from crime. This way the government are also preventing the reoccurrence of new increased crime rates and bad influences thereby keeping the people safe.
Crimes can be prevented by the government through various ways;
Urging the people by Instilling the spirit of togetherness, love, honesty, integrity, discipline and moral values in our local communities. Knowing that they got each others backs and they're comfortable also in lending help to one another. Crime rates would significantly decrease by carrying these out. Also education is KEY teaching them on how their actions positivelyaffectsthe communityor negativelyaffectsthe world in general.Therefore I suggest that 55% should go out for the prevention and a separate 15percent should go out to the local communities and the 30% should go out to the prevention of crimes but of course as I said earlier it definitely depends. Take for an example those countries that enough resources weren't put into prevention that the crime rates then became scary and dangerous to the point that the people had to be protected from danger then if that be the case then the government should employ ways to control the rate of crime by arresting the culprits, holding counselling sessions in prison for them to turn a new leaf and know that all hope isn't lost or better still sessions with trained counsellors that studied the course but despite all these, there are still some sets that plan jail breaks e.g the case of Ecuador. To prevent that, these actions could be taken by the police officers;
Enforcing more capable hands with experience .
Constructing prisons with high and thick walls, barbed wires,security cameras, movement detection systems etc. With the use of these I strongly believe that people would be protected from the crime doers thereby leading me to why I feel that in this specific case when it is life threatening out of the money set aside for the people's safety 70% should be given to protecting the people while the 30% percent to morally educate those in prison to ensure they come out a new leaf and make positive impact into the community and people around them.
Thank you.
The optimal approach for governments to ensure public safety involves a balanced combination of both crime prevention and law enforcement measures. Prevention through education programs and social support addresses root causes, fostering long-term community resilience. Simultaneously, enhancing law enforcement capabilities, such as increasing police presence and maintaining adequate prison facilities, plays a crucial role in deterring criminal activity and protecting citizens in the immediate term. A comprehensive strategy that integrates both prevention and protection measures is essential for an effective and sustainable approach to public safety.
The government should put the prevention of crime as the center point of their use of money. The government should not make protection from crime the center point as if the government prevents crime, protection may not be needed as much. The prevention of crime would lead to people seeing a decrease in crime rates. I believe the government should spend 70% of the money preventing crime and 30% of the money protecting people from crime. Though preventing crime would lead to a decrease in crime rates, protection is still needed crime will still happen and people need protection. Protection is very important as people will have ensured safety, but protection is not as important as prevention, which is why I state that the government should spend 70% of the money on prevention, not protection.
In the vote I chose option A; that they should prevent crime instead of picking option B; that they should protect people from crime. If they just stop the crime then there would be no reason to need to protect the people of Ecuador whereas if they let the crime happen then it makes it much more urgent for them to protect the citizens of Ecuador and if they cannot protect the people then the people are in grave danger. As it is harder to protect than to prevent I think the government should put about 60 - 70% of money and effort towards preventing the crime and the rest of the resources (30 - 40%) should go towards protecting the people so that just in case the preventing of the crime doesn’t work there will be protection in place to keep the citizens safe.
I personally think that the government should focus more on preventing crime and that they should spend more money on creating schools and education systems in prisons for people who have committed crimes.
The reason I think this is because if we protect people from crimes there will still be crimes going around and people could potentially get hurt or injured. If we open up more prisons ,as well, this will take up more land space and property. Also what’s the point of building loads of jails when it’s going to be empty as of the amount of people in each prison and the amount of prisons. This could possibly also make people homeless which could lead to less people in the country. So this - in my personal opinion - is a bad decision for the United Kingdom to do as it doesn’t really keep people safe ironically.
On the other hand, I think that we should instead prevent crimes from happening. If the government advertises this with social support and education system for crime committing people there will be less harm and danger because people who have been in these systems or who have had social help will know what they have done wrong and why they shouldn’t do it again. This will be so much better than taking up land which can possibly be used for other purposes like hospitals or homeless shelters. At the same time we are also teaching people the right way to do things and how to prevent them from doing it again. This idea of preventing crime will make the world a better place with less crime and more peace. So I think preventing is dominant than protecting in terms of keeping people safe.
Personally, I believe that the best way for the Government to reduce crime is by preventing it. This means that I think that education and support programmes, as already listed, would be the best way to do this. If better education programmes were set up in prisons and juvenile detention centres, I believe that the rate of crime would significantly decrease. This is because with the correct education and reformative ways, prisoners should be able to easily understand where they have gone wrong. As well as this, these types of education programmes may lead to prisoners trying to fix their lives for the better as they now fully understand what will land them back in prison. I also believe that support programmes would also be vital for reducing crime. This is because prisoners would be aided with their individual struggles, which could dramatically improve their lives once they leave prison. In the long run, these ways of preventing crime should decrease the rate of it well.
In addition to this, I believe that protecting people from crime can only go so far. Through saying this, I mean that employing more police officers and opening more prisons wouldn't really decrease the rate of crime but instead make it easier to detect crime and provides more space for criminals to be kept. If these prisoners were given resources and programmes that would act in a reformative way, then crime would truly decrease due to their increase in knowledge and understanding.
If the Government were given some money that were to be used for keeping the country safe, 30% should be spent on protecting people from crime, as it is still useful to have extra facilities and law enforcers. This means that the remaining 70% should be spent on preventing crime. I believe that this is vital as certain programmes would cost quite a lot of money and I believe that they would work the best so it is worth the extra money.
Currently there are 6.74 million crime offences taking place every year just in the UK. The governments need to do more to prevent crimes from happening. More prisons and more police officers aren't going to bring any numbers down significantly because once the crime is committed the harm has already been done. How is that keeping anyone safe? The impact it's made isn't reversed because there are more prisons to keep dangerous people in one place. By educating people from younger ages about the consequences of crime they are less likely to do it in the future. Having lessons or days focused on the crimes, sometimes even life threatening cases, could actually bring numbers down.
We need to use 60% of government help for things like teaching people about dangers and helping with mental health, to stop crimes before they happen. Let's use 30% for protecting against small bad things and teaching good behaviors. We should give the last 10% to schools. We want them to teach kids to be honest and kind. This should stop fights and quick, bad decisions that can become crimes. The big goal is to stop crime at its start and make a safe place for everyone.
In most of the cases, crime is not something which is done by choice, it is the result of a moral invading force. Each person had to go through his/her hardships to reach to a conclusion of doing a crime. Thus, in such a case, it becomes very important to prevent crime instead of protection.
If any crime can be prevented before it happens, then there wouldn’t be any need for protection. Programs propagating moral support should be introduced, new education programs should be introduced to circulate the demerits of becoming a criminal and taking the fundamental rights of any person and new economic programs should be introduced to help the needy so that they don’t have a criminal mindset and they don’t go on to chose that path.
It is also necessary to protect people from the criminals, but just preventing it from happening makes it much easier.
We need perfect balance of prevention and protection to maintain peace and harmony in a country. If we only choose ‘prevention’, it isn’t practically possible to spread awareness to 8 billion people of the world. How many people would you employ to spread awareness? How would you pay them? How would you connect them all? How would you train them to do so?
If we choose only ‘protection’ again it wouldn’t be practically possible to protect each and every person of the world. How many prisons would you build how many police officers would you appoint?
At last I would like to say that it isn’t the work of only one to maintain tranquility among people. We need perfect coordination of both the things to do so.
I agree because... the world can be protected with both prevention and protection but I think that the primary one should be prevention, you know what they say prevention is better than cure so the word should be able to prevent prisoners from becoming prisoners that means that there should be an awareness campaign to make people aware of the consequences of committing crimes for the protection and the betterment of the society instead of them actually becoming prisoners and then everyone will be running around building infrastructures just to stop criminals from causing chaos and injustice from happening in the society.
In conclusion, the world needs to take precautionary movements that is prevention to stop people from becoming prisoners with enlightenment campaigns before they chaos and injustice in the society.
In my opinion, preventing crime is much better and safer. Better because it can save effort and money, because building and operating prisons cost a lot of money that could be used in better places such as education and health. Safer because it prevents the risk of people getting robbed, hurt or even killed. Families should bring up individuals who do good in society and help in the development process. However, in places where the crime rate is very high, they should hire more police officers and enforce justice. Prisons shouldn't only be for punishment. It should be used to help make the prisoners better people. They can be used to give them skills that they can use for good and to earn money instead of doing it the bad way. By doing this we can protect people from crime and prevent its growth.
As to the allocation of resources for crime prevention and for the protection of people from crime, this could vary in terms of such factors as the needs of a particular community, the types of crime that are most prevalent, and the overall goals of government. Circumstances and priorities of each jurisdiction are likely to differ, so resources' distributions are likely to be similar in each and every case.
Considerations can be like:
1. Crime Prevention:
- Investment in programs that address the root causes—programs that try to prevent crime by reaching out through the community, education, and social services.
- Focusing on preventive measures may cause a long-term decline in crime rates.
2- Protecting People from Crime:
- Resource allocation to law enforcers, first responders, and public safety would be important in ensuring citizens are protected from immediate threats.
- Funding of police, first responders, and the security infrastructure at the right levels may beef up their operations and hence boost public safety.
The actual percentages to allocate for each category would be left to the discretion based on the community's needs and priorities. The combination of both as a balanced approach is usually recommended. It can point the way toward resourcing the community in the best interest of those it serves through public input, data-driven decision-making, and assessment of the ongoing effectiveness of programs.
Hello topical talkers ,
In my option the government should spent about 80% on preventing and just 20% on protecting because if someone is thought to be good then they would not even imagine of making any mistakes , if government spend more money on protection what's going to happen the same or even increased amount of crime could happen and then they are going to put them in jail after that they are going to come out ,in that .Few might change their behaviour but few may continue it . And then this cycle will continue but if you teach them to be good then they might change , most importantly they might even change others too.
Thank you .
I think the government should focus on protecting people from crime because that is an easy and non-stress way of solving one of the problems in our society. The government should focus on opening more strong prisons with good cells and good and trained officers that their main objectives are;rehabilitation,reformation,safety and comfort.
The government should focus on the PREVENTION of crime. Crime is not a choice; it is provoked by one or other reasons. The government should (if possible) fulfill the demands of the protests the people make, because things can get ugly in a violent protest. The government should come up with schemes for the betterment of the tiniest societies; because only the larger societies are taken into view rather than the small ones lingering and waiting for them to be noticed...Thank You!
I propose a balanced approach of 40% for protection and 60% for prevention. Because prevention is key to stopping potential crimes early, addressing root causes, and implementing proactive measures. meanwhile, protection is crucial for dealing with minor offenses that could escalate. Both strategies work together to ensure long-term and immediate safety.
Thank you.
I think the government should be more attentive to the crimes people commit. First of all, when Fito escaped a lot of the people in Ecuador had gone on a violent rampage. What if that happens to the Us if someone like a big drug boss or mafia leader escapes. What is the government going to do. Sure they might try to fight back about it, but the government also sits back and watches too. There might be some cases where they don't do anything and leave everything to the locals.
Prevention is better than cure according to Wise Saying, In my opinion governments should spend 80% on the prevention of crimes in the country through education and social programs on media that's Television, Radio, and Newspapers, so that. The levels of crime will be reduced to the nearest minimum in the country. 20 % on protection of the enforcement agency and equipment needed to protect the country.
Thank you.
I think the government should focus on the people to not commit crimes because that is for their safety and the government would want to keep them safe. Some stuff that they also should focus on is on the resources that they will use to prevent people from being safe. Also I think that parents need to teach this new generation to not violate the laws.
I agree because the first thing we need to do is to avoid that people do not join criminal actions and then protect the rest from those that did not follow laws, and that is the point where govenments should start investing money on safety, choosing carefully what they spend the money on. And parents are really a good point to start to avoid this.
A good way for the government to spend money is to keep people safe and away from crime by investing more in the police officers and increase the amont of them per city, that may also help in the economy as jobs are created, in order that they can control all streets at any time of the day and not only when they have recieved a call that someone is stealing something. I think that more than the half of the total budget must be spent in preventing crime, like a 75%.
To protect people from crime and criminals with the 25% of the total budget should be fine. They should invest in more security devices like cameras, taller walls or just better vigilance systems. Furthermore, the safety of prisons should be increased in order to avoid accidents like the one that happened a month ago in Ecuador, that I guess no one wants to find themselves in the situation of having in front of you a person that has been in prison for more than 10 years that has just escaped after whatever mistake.
I really like how you have applied your problem-solving skills by thinking about what percentage of their budgets prisons should spend on protection vs prevention
On my opinion I think that is both things are good to prevent and to protect but if you prevent samething you willn ot need to protect anything later as the crimes will not occur, while on the other hand is very diffucult to prevent the bad things that people do or even to prevent from having criminals.
Same times to prevent is more difficult because the criminals does not mater of the consrquences of the things they do and because the people who has necessity will make everything for get things they need.
The goverments should look on helping people in bad conditions on living, because they can comit crimes to survive. I think education is also an important thing to care about, because these people who aren't educated well can comit crimes thinking it is right or be taken into crime activity by other people because they are more easy to persuade.
I partially agree with you healthy_seal, the reason being that the government should help people who are going through hardships and are in bad conditions because they are prone to commit these crimes- this is due to the condition they are in, they are desperate thus they will do anything including illegal activities.
However, I disagree with you because the people who are educated can also be persuaded to commit crimes. The reason is that anyone can commit crimes, some people who are educated but are living in harsh conditions can commit crimes. A person who has been educated can be peer pressured to do illegal things, thus it is not only uneducated people who are easy to persuade to commit crimes.
Yes that's right, there are people who just like to commit crimes and harm other people, so prisons and authorities should try and protect people from this criminals. However, crimes are done by everyone and, although the conditions of these criminals differs in each case, I think everyone should have an opportunity to explain themselves.
About education, I believe that there is always a chance of getting fooled or persuaded into doing illegal things, to solve this, it would help to expose our opinions and beliefs to our family and friends, and listen to their opinions about things so that we are more focused and mind-open, as well as knowing yourself better and knowing how to connect and speak to people.
Society has assumed that crimes,violence and violating the safety of people is part of our nature,we should realise that we could prevnt these actions and live perfectly in peace,so in my opinion prevention is more important than protection.Why do we have to protect from a danger we can prevent?.In the news they always speak of how we should be careful from all the dangers around the world which come from people who only want to harm us,but they don't tell us we should not do this think,prevent the disease first that try to cure it when it could be no solution.
i believe the funds should be shared equally in the early stages, as in 50% of the funds go to prevention and the other 50% to protection. this is because, for the first few years prevention will need to be engrained into the younger generations who are more impressionable, however crime will still be at large in generations who have been conditioned to that lifestyle, so protection will still be needed. however, as time goes on and the younger generations, who have been conditioned with prevention grow up, crime will decrease a bit and the money can be put less to protection and more to prevention (in a ratio like 65% and 35%). this is because there is less crime circulating, and as the younger generations eventually have kids they will most likely instill these values in their children and thr ratio can balance out a bit more again (to something like 60% and 40%).
Hello, Ollie
To reduce crime, the government should prioritize prevention over protection. Allocating 67% of resources towards prevention, 24% towards protection, and 9% towards education can help safeguard communities. Collaboration between countries is crucial to achieve this goal. Soon crime rates will decrease, and To reduce crime, prioritize prevention over protection. Allocate 67% of resources to prevention, 24% to protection, and 9% to education. Work with other countries and distribute resources to awareness campaigns, schools, and homes. This will decrease crime rates, and lower crime rates mean a safer world.
I believe that the government should spend most of the money on keeping people safe at least 60% on keeping people safe and the remaining 40% on preventing crime. This is because no matter how much money the government puts into preventing crime, it can never be completely erased because things like mental disabilities can never cease to exist and having a mental disability is one of the main factors of crime committers. So I say that the government should only put 60% in protecting people so they can get more police officers, more secure prisons for dangerous people, and insane asylums, because a lot of dangerous people originate from asylums. However only putting 40% in preventing crime could be put to mental hospitals, rehab places, and prisons.
I believe governments should spend somewhere between 55-65% of their police budget on protecting people from crime, and 45-35% on preventing crime. Protecting people from crime should be the major focus of police budgets because there will always be crime, because some people can't be helped or rehabilitated, like Fito. He's been in and out of jail, and he might have been rehabilitated, and if he was, he didn't learn, because he still escaped. During the lesson, one of the cards, I saw Fito had escaped from prison multiple times before. 45-35% of the budget should be dedicated for prevention or rehabilitation, because prevention is also very important. The rehabilitation programs may finally "crack a bad egg", and turn a prisoner into a functioning member of society. Finally, if enough prisoners turn into good citizens, they can teach kids at schools about what it's like to be in prison.
I believe that crimes will always prevail despite practical measures that might be put in place. As human as we are, many have not yet mastered one or two deviant behaviours, hence, they lack the act of self-control to overcome the urge foe committing a crime irrespective of its degree. For this reason, if a government is allocating funds for keeping people safe, it should spend 70% to protect people from crime and 30% to prevent them.
As I have emphasised in my earlier submission, I think monies invested in education programmes and social support may not yield fruit unless an individual has decided to put a stop to a behaviour that may lead to a crime. Rather, attention should be paid in recruiting and making rich resources available to protects citizens from crime. By so doing, culprits will be easily identified and prosecuted for their actions.
I think the government should focus on preventing crime because if you try to protect people from someone is bound to be injured because your locking them away and if they are able to escape they will start to hate the country as has happened in this situation. The government have already failed to protect people from crime so they should begin to prevent it now.
I think that by preventing crime is a better answer crime happens because of a lot of reasons Crime is a complex phenomenon influenced by various factors, including socioeconomic conditions, inequality, lack of education, and systemic issues. Individual motivations, such as desperation, greed, or lack of opportunities, also play a role. Understanding and addressing these root causes can contribute to more effective crime prevention strategies. Let's say Egypt Egypt now has lots and lots of crime since everything became more expensive than ever and that's a reason for crime education for another example when someone isn't educated there's a big chance they won't be able to work but they have to work to bring money so they have to do crimes so if we improved the reasons of crime (prevent crime) that would make us safe.
Thank you
The government needs to up the security in places like prisons, to ensure that it is more secure and less prisoners can escape. I think this should use 50% percent of the resources to ensure the public is safer from gangs and drug dealers. However schools should use 30% of the resources as education is important for kids as it can help job interviews. Also if not enough money is spent on education then more people will fail schools and therefore steal money from the public so crime rates will increase. 20% of resources should go towards protection off the public like spending more money paying police so they can get more police officers to protect citizens
Definitely prevention, since it decreases crime permenataly, while protection decreases it temporarily, since these criminals are still a threat, they may be in prison, but their intentions are still the same. While prevention completely neutralizes a criminal.
If we were to put it in percentages, then prevention would take up 55% percent of the government's annual security & defense budget. While protection should take 45% of the government's annual security & defense budget.
Protecting people will always result in more criminals, since a criminal may have a child who will follow in his father's footsteps. Prevention makes these criminals actually do something for the world.
Prevention is also cheaper than protection, because you invest little into a lot of different things, which overall improve your economy, stability, and status of living. It also help your people be more productive, becoming doctors and engineers.
Prevention also installs certain moral compasses into young people, which help them focus on the right things. With enough prevention, crime may dive down to an all-time low.
So, in short. Prevention helps prevent crime and improve the overall shape of the country.
I believe that police forces should protect people from crime more often, so that people won't have to always be wary of their safety while dangerous criminals are at large. As well as that, people would be more willing to not commit crimes, because they will have to take a risk and most likely get in trouble with the law. While stopping crime directly could be a good way to ensure safety, things like searching and putting more criminals in prison would most likely cause other citizens to be discouraged to commit a crime. Plus, another way to protect people from crime is to hire more people into law enforcement and to give them lots of training, so that they can be able to properly protect people from criminals.
In reality, it may not be as simple to prevent crime, but maybe easier when it comes to protecting people from crime. But if a government would have money to spend, the government should most likely spend more of a percentage on protecting people instead of preventing crime. Maybe like 65% of protecting and 35% of preventing crime. For instance, maybe adding more police officers with more training and or reserving more prisons. If someone were to have a heart attack on side of the highway and there is a high chance of a police officer watching the officer can actually be more informed on what to help while calling for medical help. There can be more situations like this and even worse. Therefore this is while I personally believe a government should spend more money on protecting people.
That's an interesting perspective, and I can see where you're coming from. It makes sense that protecting people from harm is just as important, if not more so, than preventing crime from happening in the first place. And it's true that having more police officers and better training could make a big difference in responding to emergencies and other situations where people might need help. However, I would argue that it's still important to invest in preventing crime, even if it's not as simple or straightforward as protecting people. If we can reduce the likelihood of crime occurring in the first place, it could have a significant impact on overall public safety.
Sure thing. One example of spending money on protection rather than prevention is the idea of spending more on medical research to improve treatments for diseases rather than just spending on measures to prevent people getting diseases in the first place. This is because, even with the best preventative measures, there will always be some people who still get diseases and will need treatment.
Another example is spending money on disaster relief after a natural disaster rather than just spending on prevention measures. While it is important to take measures to prevent or minimize the effects of natural disasters, when a disaster does happen, it is important to have the resources to help people who have been affected by the disaster. Some people might argue that spending on prevention is a better use of money because it saves lives, but I would argue that spending on protection is still important, because there are always going to be some people who are not protected by the prevention measures and will need help.
Do you think that these examples are comparable to the question of whether governments should spend more on protecting people or preventing crime?
I solidly agree with what jazzed ocean said because, I also know the famous saying that prevention is better than curing. Prevention is the beginning of solving problems. I think the government should focus more of their money and resources on preventio. If i am been asked to grade this two topics, i will grade prevention 75 precent while protection 25 precent because, when you prevent an event from occuring, there is no need for protection but when you don't prevent, that is when we start to talk about protection. Prevention comes first before protection.
Thanks!!!
I'm not sure about this because... How about things that occurs naturally if government should focus all the money on prevention what will happen to those who are faced with disaster
In my opinion I think government should prevent crime because through prevention there will safety and order. Preventing crimes can protect the citizens and also restore public trust in law enforcement and the government, by doing so government as to invest in security measures such as increase in police patrols, security cameras and hiring more security personnels, this can police spot criminals from committing offenses. Government should work on the increase of poverty, because most crimes are mostly done by the poor, in my opinion government should provide supplies for poor every month by doing this crime s will reduce. Crime also occurs because of discrimination, government looking on the poor and favoring the rich, because of this many poor citizens are unemployed hence their only choice is to commit crimes to put food on their table. government should be honest when it comes to providing jobs so crimes can reduce. Government should play law enforcers properly so justice will served properly .
If the government can prevent crimes from taking place, I belive that the safety of the citizens is guaranteed, not entirely but at least the citizens will feel safer than how they would if their country is known to be a place hallmarked for all sorts of crimes. The possibility of the government to protect the citizens in my opinion is much lower, if compared to the possibility that the citizens would be safer when there is no crime at all. There is a saying that prevention is better than cure.
I think the government should spend 50% on preventing crime and 50% on protecting people form crime. If the government can create an avenue to talk to/discuss with the criminals/bandits on what they will need/want in order to become better people, it will also prevent/reduce crime. Government can also support them or educate them because most of them want money and food to take care of their families. Once the government has successfully done that, crime will be prevented and people will be protected from crime at the same time. Although during the discussion with government, some of the criminals may give a close to impossible tasks that even the government cannot meet up with, leading to the criminals continuing with their crime. The government should therefore build more prisons and employ more armed forces to control the crime/chaos in the country when such arises.
I think the government needs to focus more on protecting people from crimes because crimes destroy the country and if you cut the corners and didn't take care of it and make it to continue you will pay the price that will be like what is happening in Ecuador such as.
(1) (The spreading of cocaine smuggling)
(2) ( The gangs are getting stronger )
And the last one that is you've seen that your country's protection is decreasing for example:
As you have seen the number of people percentage became Double.
So this is something that proves that protection from crimes is too important.
We should stop doing business in Country A because they're being aggressive. It's about keeping our staff safe and doing what's right, even if it means losing some money. People matter more than profits in this tough situation.
I think that the goverment shoult invest a 70% in protecting the city from crime ,and the other 30% in building a safe prision so any prisionero could scape from it.However the city can have a very good prisión an a protect city but also I think they will need very restrictive law against the criminals pan the way of panish them.
i would have to say 50% should be on crime and 50% should be on protecting people
They should spend more time preventing as if they are putting their resources to preventing that is stopping crime rates and mostly stopping crime which is eminently protecting and helping people from crime and preventing it can stop more prisons made and that space could make a school or park or for the plant a tree planting space
In my opinion i think the government should focus of preventing crimes more than protecting people from it and i know that might sound crazy but heres my reasoning why.
If there is no crime to prevent then there is no reason to protect people fro om something that would be nonexistent but that is really unrealistic because there will always be some sort of crime in the world. but i would still say prevent because most people who commit crime come from poor backgrounds or dont know any better because its how they were raised so i personally think if we prevent crime we can help those who need it because in my opinion some people commit crime to get out there feelings because they think they have no other way.
According to me, if government must be more concerned with preventing crime, because if we stop people from making wrong chores then automatically the crime rates will plummet a lot and this will make gradually, a change and less crime will be reported so thus the government must give 65% of money towards preventing crime through increasing resources to educate and make people learn good skills.
Now the rest 35% must be allocated for protecting people from crime because if people understand that they should not commit crime then there will be a reduce of people in prisons too and less crime will be reported. So basically in my judgement we should prevent crimes through increasing education, social activities and social bondings with each other.
I think that the government should focus on preventing crimes rather than protecting the people from them because resulted losses from crimes such as money heists ,arson ,burglary and so on demand allot of resources to mend while preventing losses will save the government a lot of resources and work.
In conclusion, I think that 70% of the government's resources should be concentrated on preventing crime while on the other hand 30% of resources will go towards protection against crime.
I think the best way for governments to keep people safe is by preventing crime.
First of all, governments wouldn't have to worry about protecting people from crime if there was no crime. As a recommendation, approximately 60% of the budget should be allocated to crime prevention initiatives, while the remaining 40% should be dedicated to crime protection measures. Investing in education and social services can provide individuals with alternatives to a life of crime, eventually reducing recidivism rates. Ultimately, these proactive measures work to reduce the likelihood of criminal activity and contribute to the long-term safety and well-being of communities.
On the other hand, crime protection measures are essential to ensuring immediate safety and security. While prevention is ideal, some level of crime is inevitable. Not only is the government spending money on enforcement, it is also spending money on victims of crime. So I think a way to reduce the amount of money spent keeping people safe is by quenching crime.
In my opinion, the government should focus more on prevention of crimes. This is because if more people are educated, and made to understand this situation, crimes will reduce which will lead to the safety and security of the citizens. Government can prevent crimes by providing job opportunities, carrying out a constructive program and addressing socioeconomic equality.
If the government has a certain amount of money then-
60% should be used in prevention of crime.
40% percent should be used in protection from crime.
A larger sum of money should be invested in prevention of crime. However, at the same time, measures to protect people from crime should also be strengthened because there are high chances of the government’s efforts going in vain to prevent crime so protection of crime should also be adequately provided.
Thank you.
Hey everyone!
I've got a thought to share: when it comes to government spending on prisons, I believe it's super important to put more focus on preventing crime rather than just building more stuff and hiring more folks. Here's why: if we invest in preventing crime, we're not just tackling the symptoms, we're actually making our communities safer. But if we only keep building more facilities without addressing the root causes of crime, we might end up with even higher crime rates.
So, let's put our money where it counts by investing in things like community programs, education, and services that help people get back on track. By doing this, we're not just keeping crime in check, we're building stronger, safer communities for everyone.
Hi,
I personally think the government should do more to prevent crime . Currently there is 95,526 UK people in prison across the country . This could decrease by by a significant amount if there was prevention programs . If the UK government started prevention programs less people would be in prison . This could lead to more jobs being filled and the government getting more money . This could help locally as places may become safer to live . This would reassure families that the UK is still a safe place .
Interesting ideas. Can you tell us where you found your evidence?
Hello Chloe .
Thank you so much for you question . For this article I found my evidence at the website called https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/ . I know this is a trustworthy website as it is a registered government website . Ask any more questions if you need .
The best way for governments to keep people safe involves a combination of both preventing and protecting against crime. Here's why:
Preventing Crime: Investing in education programs, social support systems, and community initiatives can address the root causes of crime such as poverty, lack of education, and social inequality. By providing resources and opportunities to vulnerable populations, governments can reduce the likelihood of individuals turning to criminal activities in the first place. Prevention efforts not only mitigate the immediate risks of crime but also contribute to long-term societal stability and well-being.
Protecting People from Crime: Enhancing law enforcement capabilities, increasing police presence in communities, and improving the criminal justice system's efficiency are vital for protecting citizens from crime. This involves measures like opening more prisons to incarcerate offenders, implementing effective crime prevention strategies, and ensuring swift and fair punishment for lawbreakers. Protection measures serve to deter criminal behavior, apprehend perpetrators, and uphold public safety and order.
Hi,
In my opinion, goverments should try to prevent people from crime. Today many people are turning into criminals. But why? In my opinion, these are the people that were bullied, depressed and poor. I think many would like to get revenge on the society that criticized them. But stopping crime is super difficult. And by that I mean more police officers, guns and violence will be spread and the problem will get even worse. People will think that the goverment is trying to hurt them and even more resistance and violence will spread. But by preventing crime it will decrease the high crime rates. And by that I mean teaching to the next generation, us ,to stop crime. Like how to be a good citizen, how to take care of the environment and love each other. In this way there will be low crime rates and love will be spread all over the world. As an example, we will take Singapore. Singapore is a little country in Asia with massive technological and education improvement. Singapore teaches its people all these things and they are all caring and love each other. This little country is a great example on how a country is supposed to built. And I don't mean that copying all the culture of Singapore but take its laws and great educational system.
In my own opinion.... I feel Government should spend 70% of resources on prevention towards sensitisation,campaigns , education and vaccination programs especially on sensitisation ,many people are ignorant of some things they do that can damage lives but if government spend more resources on prevention and we are able to sensitize the people,it would be a relief.for instance,one of the causes of flood is poor disposal of waste into rivers,stream or water bodies which are primarily caused by we humans some are ignorant of the fact that throwing dirties into water bodies is dangerous and that can vandalise lots of things,but if they are sensitive and oriented,they could recycle their waste and this contributes to economic growth.
Moreover,if government invest more on prevention towards public health campaigns ,we as a human also have a role to play preventing problems like disease outbreaks or natural disaster ,we can practice good hygiene and take instructions given or hear from the public health campaigns.
20% of the government resources should go for protection like law enforcement ,emergency response e.t.c but the fact still remain that if Government invest more on prevention,there will be no much need for protection Don't get me wrong oo b
There will still be need for protection,but prevention they say,is better than cure.
The last 10% should go for the institutions where learning and teaching will effectively take place ,awareness and sensitisation will also commence that is why we have in some schools subjects that teaches them the prevention of disasters or crime in the society,they are also enlightened on sanitation habits which can prevent the spread of diseases.
Investing more on PREVENTION ,communities can reduce the need for PROTECTION in the future." An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" ........Benjamin franklin
In my opinion the first step is to prevent crime. If this is succeeded in a big percentage then protection would be in a smaller scale.
School should instill the knowledge of laws and citizenship so us to feel more close to community from an early age Global values such as equality, respect, collectivenes, unity can show children how to use them correctly.
Protection is a measure that should be taken when prevention is not enough.
Hi
I believe that the government should focus more of their resources towards the prevention of crime because if the government focuses on protecting people from crime something might get wrong. because preventing crime involves teaching people right and wrong.for example man is walking on the road and a thief want to steal some thing from him before the police reach the place the thief might have injure the man.that means prevention is better than cure.
Thanks.
Both are equally as important but I feel there should be more focus on prevention of crime. Preventing crime is ultimately the root to coming up with long term solutions which will eventually ensure protection. Protection against crime is equally as necessary but if we focus on prevention then we can tackle crimes root causes so it doesn’t happen. Prevention will reduce the likelihood of crime happening in the first place.
Another thought is that prevention against crime would mean that less money is spent on protection against crime. Less investigations and court cases would have to be payed for which would leave more money to be spent on other necessary services such as healthcare and education.
Hi topical talkers
Crime is the worst thing to do,so I guess to prevent it we need at least 20% protection from the government to prevent crime.Why people do unlawful things are only because they don't have job or they need something from the government.We need to be protected and prevented from crime because all we (human being) need is protection.So I think that should be 40% protection from government.And at last we need to be educated,we need to go to school and learn how to protect ourselves from crime and how to prevent them.The reason why I said this is because we need to prevent crime before it is protected,and we need to be educated before we can prevented.If crime is prevented we can go to school safely and learn how to prevent it more.
A government should spend 60% on preventing crime, and 40% on protecting people from crime. If they spend most of the money on preventing crime, they could lower down the crime rate, and since the crime rate has gone down they won't need to spend as much money on protecting people from crime because there will be less crime.
Thank you for your comment - can you explain how the government can prevent crime?
I believe that allocating 50% of the government's budget to both protecting and preventing crime is crucial in maintaining a safe and secure society. This balanced approach can have several benefits:
1. Public safety: By dedicating resources to protecting citizens, law enforcement agencies can effectively respond to emergencies, maintain law and order, and provide a sense of security to the public.
2. Crime prevention: Allocating funds towards crime prevention initiatives can address the root causes of criminal behavior. Investing in education, social programs, and rehabilitation efforts can reduce the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal activities.
3. Long-term cost savings: Investing in crime prevention measures can lead to long-term cost savings for the government. By addressing the underlying factors that contribute to crime, such as poverty and lack of education, the need for expensive law enforcement and incarceration can be reduced.
However, it is important to note that the allocation of resources should be flexible and adaptable to the specific needs and circumstances of each community. Different regions may require different proportions of funding based on their crime rates, demographics, and other factors.
In my opinion, the political government should work towards prevention of crime, rather than protection because if there's no crime, there's no reason for protection. If crimes are heavily protected, society would be safer, more enjoyable, and honestly a real utopia. Instead, if the government works toward protecting, crimes would still happen, and with the lack of police officers, it wouldn't do much because they couldn't protect everyone, which would be problem because of injustice.
HELLO!!
i think" prevention" is more important than "protection "because if you prevent people successfully you most not protect them to be safe . THANK YOU!!
Thank you for your comment thoughtful hedgehog. Can you suggest some examples of ways that governments can prevent crime?
Hi, I think the best ways governments can stop crimes from happening are:
1. Making programs to teach people why crimes are bad.
2. Hiring experts to teach criminals why it's better not to commit crimes, especially when they get out of jail because they might do it again.
3. Hiring more security to keep everyone safe.
I believe that the status should not be limited since crime is one of the main causes of evil in cities, causing great problems in business among other more serious problems. A clear example is robbery, murder and kidnapping, coverage should protect to the citizens of these problems to dedicate themselves to ending crim
I answered answer A: preventing crime rather than protecting people from it. I chose this answer because as a person, I believe that it is so stupid that there are people in the world who could pay for enough food to solve world hunger or world peace, but no one has managed to stop crime. If anyone is put in jail, that encourages more to commit to crime. I know this sounds strange and stupid, but let's just think about this logically. In England, 1590 in every 1,000000 people go to jail, and 75880 out of 1,000000 people are criminals. This means that roughly one fifth of criminals go to jail. This, as you've probably worked out, is a minority. If an average person was contemplating taking up a criminal life, they would most likely find out this information beforehand, therefore encouraging them to take up a criminal life. Also, England has a high criminal rate, so they could move somewhere else to make it easier. Therefore you should stop crime rather than protecting people from it.
Hi all I want to say is that prevention is better than protection because if all of us prevent crime and other negative actions not a single harm can beware us but for protection some people can do otherwise and think that they can be protected by their friends meanwhile they don't know that is not everyone you can trust to protect you .
The government should focus more on preventing crime, because preventing crime by educating people will change their minds from even wanting to commit a crime. In a case like this, a person goes for a job interview, he/she desperately needs a job to survive, and the manager sacks the person out just because of their educational background the person might result to different sources of crime just for survival, so education really plays an important role in crime.
My opinion would be more about prevention of crime, so people could live freely instead of having to constantly worry about marauding criminals. If there could just be NO crime, it would make it easier and safer for people in places like Ecuador, to live normal lives without curfews or other annoying ruled.
I think that the government should focus more on preventing the occurrence of crimes. Especially in a police station that doesn't hire often and has only a handful of police, it is harder to protect the citizens from crimes than to prevent it. However, people steal due to them being poor and they need money for supplies and food for them to survive unless they steal for fun. We should get the criminals social support or enough supplies to benefit them and for them to survive without having to steal from any shops etc. I would choose 60% of government resources for preventing crime. We can teach the young students good and honest ethics, and teach them good principles or habits. I chose 40% government resources to be spent on the protections of citizens from crimes. 40%, hopefully, should be a somewhat good quantity amount of law enforcement to be able to get the citizens out and deal with the situation that is occurring.
I think protection is more important so people don't get hurt when crime happens so I think protection deserves 55%of the money. On the other hand you could say there's no need for protection if the thing that your protected from doesn't happen so actually I would make it 50-50
I couldn't really choose because I think the government can use both of those ways to protect the people of his country firstly, by preventing crime if the government implements stricter policies people might get afraid of commenting crime because of all the strict polices like increasing life sentences or being given a life sentence.
Secondly, we all know that the government has lots of money he /she should use the money to build more prisons and make staff work easire insuring a safe community.
Preventing crime isn't easy. A crime could happen any time in a day, it can be drug dealing murder and other things that go against the law. The only thing that can stop them from doing those things is the police and prison. The government needs to focus more on prisons being reinforced. They need better walls for example, the reason to that is because prisons normally have metal walls which are not very powerful and even though they have barbed wires on it that won't stop anyone from cutting the metal wall. Sometimes prisons can make the inmates stressed out and because of that they would want to escape more and more.
I feel as though there isn't one black and white solution. Its important to incorporate both prevention and protection ,yet protection is something that should be prioritized. Its been shown that if it can be done it will happen in some way shape or form. The protection of innocent civilians is important. At the end of the day you cannot control someone's actions but you can control the way you respond to it.
HELLO FABULOUS_RASBERRY.
I agree with you because for the protection of prisons to happen, this means that the part of the government and the people preventing it was nor some. Now, the part I do not agree with you is when you said that protection is the prioritized. I do not agree with this statement because, the prevention of prisons is better than it happening and people try to protect. So, for me, in this topic PREVENTION MEANS; PREPARING FOR THE STOPPING OF A NONE GOOD EVENT FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE.
I just think that the prisons should be prevented so that in case something happens, we will be well geared to protect ourselves.
THANK YOU.
I think the best option in this case would be to prevent crime. This is because I think preventing crime is safer than just protection from crime, because if the governments can try to prevent crime more, than it won't be happening as often. There also won't be so many issues like the prison guards issues, and the prisoners escaping from their cells. I think prevention is always better than protection, even though protection is important as well. I think the government should spend 70% of their money on preventing crime, and 30% on protection from crime, because even if they try to prevent crime, it could be effective, but crime could still happen. Protection is still important to have.
I would prefer preventing crime because it can really make the place safer. It can prevent crime and can make the world a safer place. Right now through brutal stabbings and numerous major escapes from prison ( like the escape of Fito) and if we can prevent crimes we can prevent laywers and witnesses from crimes to take a rest from solving cases.
What do you think would be the best way to prevent crimes?
I think the best way to prevent crime is to learn to become a better citizen.
In my own perspective I think that they should prevent the citizens from crime not to protect them, because prevention in my own thinking is better than protection.
And their are some ways government can prevent crime in the country by introducing new skills and techniques in the country.
Government can open new skills learning centre for the unemployed citizens.
Eager to see any corrections from you.
I am grateful.
I think that prevention is better than protection because when you prevent something, you delay a bad thing from happening but when you protect something, you do not do well in preventing it from happening.
When having to prevent having prisoners you can do that by having enlightenment campaigns to show the consequences of committing crimes.
In conclusion, there is a known saying, and this is, prevention is better than cure.
Where do you think the enlightenment campaigns should be shown?
The best way for governments to keep people safe is by preventing crime. This is because preventing crime is economically friendly, opportunistic, success driven, and safe. Preventing crime turns vulnerable, exploited, and unruly youth in risk of an unstable adulthood to have the resources and opportunities to learn and escape bad behaviors. As young as kids and teens may be, they are likely to engage in activities resulting in damages and harm to other youth and adults. Preventing crime through youth programs, strong foster families, friendly social clubs, mentorship programs, counseling, free healthcare programs, free transportation for teens of struggling families, and other prevention programs and organizations may prevent impoverished youth and adults from committing crime or more crime. Wrong-doings may result in an inescapable cycle that may cause national threats such as gang violence, fraud, illegal markets, and other related delinquent acts that certain individuals are stuck in. Others factors such as terrorism may not be in the hands of the government, so a lot of money still needs to be funded in protecting citizens. Governments should control and manage such safety measures that will benefit the nation and its citizens. 73% of federal funding should be spent on preventing crime and 27% of federal funding should be spent on protecting people from crime. I chose this because prevention programs may be small but are very influential and less susceptible to outside factors causing weaknesses to the system. Prevention programs may have highly educated staff such as teachers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and doctors, which is not necessary for criminals to weaken for their own benefit. Criminals will have reasons to weaken the prison and security systems to cause national breaches or attacks to free gang leaders, cause political collapse, or other reasons. The additional 3% will be for other costs such as income and additional costs to run the prevention programs. Additionally, it will be used for the same reasons for protecting citizens.
I think that preventing and protecting are important but on one hand you have protecting the public from crime but on the other hand you have preventing crime altogether i honestly think preventing crime is more important because if you prevent the crime from happening in the first place so the public cannot be harmed as their is no crime.
Hi, from my point of view the government have to spend a bigger percentage in keeping people safe from crime as it is almost impossible to prevent all the crimes. I also think that government must use a percentage of that money to give a good education and opportunities to people in order to prevent this crimes in the future.
What sort of education do you think is the most important in preventing crime?
Hello,
I think that more percentage of the money should be spent on totally preventing crime. There is an adage that states that "Prevention is better that cure." It is far more better to prevent something dangerous that to spend money when the damage has already been done. It is like curing a disease when you could have easily prevented the disease from attacking you.
If the opportunity to prevent crime is missed, it can drain all the money from a country while trying to protect people from it. It can also result to the loss of many lives and property insreasng the chances of a country experiencing underdevelopment.
THANK YOU!!!
I think preventing crime is better because it reduces crime rates overall and makes the city a better and safer place for the community in equador
I believe that the government should spend most of their time preventing crimes. If the government were able to prevent crimes more often this will also lead into keeping people safe, which kills two birds with one stone. Also, not only that but preventing crime in general is important because law enforcement is not enough to even protect citizens and also it hard to even prevent crimes due to criminals having weapons, resisting arrest, and more. I say that preventing should take up about 65% of the governments time and protecting 40%.
In my opinion, the government should be prioritizing preventing crimes more than protecting people from crime, because if a person is educated about crimes and its consequences, then they would be less likely to commit the crimes itself, however, it would be impossible to prevents all the crimes that will happen. And I'd say, that the government should spend about 50% percents of their money on preventing crimes, and programs that will help, and the rest which is 40% percents on protecting the people from crimes.
I choose B, because crime can be prevented through education, program for family and youth for example :community programs where experts will come and educate and lecture the families and youth the benefits of peaceful co-existence obedience, rules and regulations for the society.
example 2:vocational studies and education so to teach the youth vocation for little jobs, so they can do to help themselves and their families, vocation like: shoemaking, carpentry, fashion designing, baking, tailoring.
When allocating resources to enhance public safety, a government faces the delicate task of balancing crime prevention and protection. While there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. Allocating a significant portion of resources to prevent crime is crucial. This includes measures such as community outreach, education, mental health services, and addressing root causes of criminal behavior. Effective prevention can reduce the overall incidence of crime, enhance community well-being, and save lives. A reasonable allocation might be around 40-50% of the budget for crime prevention efforts. Allocating resources to protect people from crime involves funding law enforcement agencies, emergency response, and maintaining public order. Adequate protection ensures swift responses to emergencies, maintains order, and apprehends criminals. The remaining 50-60% could be allocated to protection and law enforcement.Ultimately, a balanced approach that combines prevention and protection is essential for a safer society.
In my opinion, I am thinking on both sides. I think that preventing crime is necessary as we can make the place we live in a safer place than what it is now. In the UK, there are phone thefts, stabbing , shoplifting ( mostly teenagers ) and more crimes which are against the law. It is unbelievable that they get away with this and the people who were included in the crime or witnessed it get fined! If we prevent crime, we can make a massive change to the world around us. In addition, I think that preventing crime is necessary because we can we can pay attention for any suspicious behaviour like hiding something from view of others or grabbing someone wrist and leading them to somewhere unknown and other thing can make our world a crime-free place. On the other hand, I think preventing crime is critical as if someone has gotten very angry, or has lost their temper, they may take their anger out onto other people, the people that have done nothing wrong, except to fight to prevent injuring yourself. One way the government can prevent crime is to increase the pay of police officers so they can keep their eyes peeled, to keep a lookout for aggressiveness toward other people, or threatening others so they can do what they want.
So in conclusion, I am on both sides for this debate.