is it a losing battle fighting crime?

Question

all crime from terrorism to sex crimes

Answer 1

Certainly, with the current amount of resources in place for policing in general, I believe we are losing the battle. The prisons are filled to the brim, and courts are asked not to pose custodial sentences if it can be avoided. The sentences handed-down for crimes beggar belief at their leniency. Much low-level crime goes uninvestigated by police as they don't have the resources.

Law and Order is in a worse state that it ever has been.

Answer 2

No of course not. However, we need to change the way we fight it and I believe if the punishment was more severe there would be less crime. Ive been to the Middle East several times and walked around the streets late at night with my partner, I would never do that in London. The crime rate is low due to punishments being severe and it is a deterrent. We are too soft here that is the problem.

Answer 3

No. It is a losing battle trying to eradicate crime (especially terrorism), but fighting crime does lower the amount of crime that happens, and that saves real lives and real money and adds to the overall quality of life for those who want to live in a crime-free world.

Answer 4

No, not at all - not a victory, maybe a standoff, but not losing. Without fighting crime, I really think our communities would be overrun with crime - a small example of this would be riots in a city - there would be anarchy everywhere without law enforcement. Just think of the things you might do, if there was no police deterrent around.

Answer 5

.
Mayor Giuliani reduced crime in New York by carrying out a policy of zero tolerance.
I couldn't see our ultra left wing London Mayor,Livingstone,allowing that because he was one of the main opponents of "Stop and Search" some years ago. Yes,he made a race issue of it complaining that ethnic minorities were being unfairly targeted. If the police had been allowed to do their job at that time ago London would now be a safer place to live in..

Answer 6

If the writing's good, particular, why no longer? I already examine a e book about against the law-battling, noir-detective, dinosaur in a human healthful who were given intense on each and every occasion he smelled herbs like basil or rosemary this summer (casual Rex through Erica Garcia), why no longer a llama, too.

Answer 7

The current method is yes. This is because to fight crime, the government creates more laws, more laws creates more criminals. For example, if you made eating toast illegal, then all toast eaters would become criminals, crime rates rise by millions and more laws come into place to fight it, probably making eating breakfast illegal and all breakfast eaters become criminals and so on and so fourth. Its a vicious cycle.

Answer 8

When you identify what race of people are commiting crime you are not allowed to name them, because you are being racist!!!

Certain types of dog are known to be dangerous rotweiller etc.

But the powers that be hate the idea that they would be seen as racist by saying that most black males are muggers, drug dealers and rapist's.

Answer 9

There will always be rogue elements in society (criminals) however we can reduce this by fighting crime and educating the young (bouth educationally and morally!).

Answer 10

No, I think the way we fight it needs to change, we will have to give up more of our civil liberty to do it & that will be the sticking point.
I see it as a small point to pay for safety.