or the people who are the one's commiting the crimes?
2006-08-31 09:54:31 · 12 answers · asked by slee z 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
the people who commit the crimes.
The anti-Gun lobby is at fault somewhat also
So is the so called war on drugs.
2006-08-31 09:57:36 · answer #1 · answered by tardis1977 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is both.
Obviously, the people who commit the crimes should not be doing it. But it is the police's responsibility to show presense and catch the criminals so often that the criminals won't do the crimes for fear of being caught.
It is also the fault of the justice system for not instilling fear in the criminals as far as sentencing for a crime. If every criminal who commits a crime only gets a sharp slap on the wrist, what's to stop them from doing it again, or others doing the same thing?
2006-08-31 16:59:11 · answer #2 · answered by drizzt_234 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
criminals make a choice to commit crime, when crime increases that means more people are choosing to commit crimes, this could be because they feel they won't get caught or because they feel they have no other choice. A rise in crime rates could come from increased enforcement, but usually this is a short term thing (like a string of drug raids, etc). A longer term increase usually lies with the criminals.
Crime as a phenomena comes from the criminals committing it. Just as a mural comes from an artist when he acts to paint, so does crime spring from the criminal when he acts to commit it.
2006-08-31 17:03:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the ones committing the crimes, the people who raised them to think it's OK to commit crime, the people in government office who won't allocate more money to put additional police on the street or programs to help those who would commit crime find something else to do.
2006-08-31 16:58:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The anti-gun lobby is at biggest fault.
Read John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime
Lott is a sociologist from the University of Chicago, he did a 10 year study of crime and gun control, in areas where gun restrictions are high crime is high, and in areas where gun restrictions are low, crime is lower.
The hypothesis seems to hold water that an armed society is a polite society.
Also contributing to crime is "prohibitions" on controlled substances, if we were to regulated drug trafficking and tax the product in order to fund treatment centers drug crimes would reduce substantially as it did when the 18th amendment was repealed.
2006-08-31 17:04:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, since crime rates refer to the number of recorded crimes, I'd say that it's often the police's fault and maybe even a good thing.
2006-08-31 17:00:44 · answer #6 · answered by enaronia 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on the situation. If the cops are doing their job as they should, then no, but if they are sitting in the doughnut shop most of the time then yes. The cops can't control what is going on as far as the number of criminals in their jurisdiction. If an unusually high number of criminals congregate in one area then cops just have to deal with them the best that they can. Alot of cities don't have the resources to hire enough cops to do the job sufficiently.
2006-08-31 17:01:48 · answer #7 · answered by Pop D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No its the criminal's fault for breaking the law.
2006-09-04 12:50:35 · answer #8 · answered by Kawik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its not the police fault it is are goverment for not puting alot of free activities out there so are kids wont have so much free time to learn and do this crap!!!jobs!parkdistric activities and so much more!
2006-08-31 17:01:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it depends if the cops are envolved in it then it would be the cops but if it just the people then it would be the peoples fault.
2006-08-31 16:59:56 · answer #10 · answered by wyanehaltcher 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋