do real-world public policies prevent crime?

Question

what public policy or prevention strategy makes most sense?

Answer 1

Our public policy is possibly beyond redemption. Our drug policy makes more criminals. Our DUI laws make more criminals. Our domestic laws make more criminals. Our country puts more of its citizens in jail than any other country in the world. Now they want to make spanking children a criminal offense. With every crime that hits the paper, a politician puffs up his or her chest and makes a tougher law on crime, which gets eaten up by the liberal press, and the public does not realize it only makes the problems worse.The politicians put thieves in jail to cover up their thievery and corruption. We need to get rid of many of our tough laws that don't fix anything. Police, lawyers, judges, and politicians all benefit from tough laws, but the citizens that are being protected are the ones being hurt. Stop the merry go round. I want to get off.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

No. None make any sense or difference. Criminals as a group, do NOT obey laws or public policies. Crime has no "root causes" as the bleeding heart liberals try to make people believe. It's caused by defective thinking, or lack of thought at all. No law is going to force a criminal to "think" about a crime before he does it. And no 'cushy' prison is going to deter crime either. In fact, some criminals will commit a crime so they can be put in prison so they won't have to get an honest job. Why should they work when they can get everything free in prison guaranteed by the maggots of the ACLU, a communist run organization that forces prisons to coddle the worst of society?

Answer 4

Basically no. As is evident by the example of Washington DC. It has the strictest gun laws in the nation and the highest per capita murder rate. Police are very good at writing traffic tickets, protecting politicians and monitoring law abiding citizens. When it comes to crime the solution is to severely punish the offender publicly so that would be criminals are scared into obeying the law. Unfortunately innocents would suffer, they always do. A gov't that makes the criminal the victim of society encourage crime.

Answer 5

We live in a really eventful world where there is a lot of good and bad.

So, plocy-making is often a reactionary process that depends upon a series of good or bad events.

The best policies against crime try to root out the crime at the root. For example, instead of just prosecuting people who sell drugs in our neighbourhoods, it is also important to put policies in place that make it very difficult to traffic drugs acorss the borders.

Unfortunately, when you make better policies against crime, you always get some crazy criminals who still find ways to circumvent them. So then we make the policies tighter -- and the trick I guess is to make the policies tight enough that criminals find it not worth their while.

I guess one can also into into why people become criminals and try to solve the root causes for this so as to direct more and more people into mainstream society where they can earn an honest living.

Answer 6

none if the policies are not enforced. We have gun laws and policies against drugs but everyday you see someone killed over drugs with an illegal handgun. and I'll bet a police officer drove past that thug 100 times and saw them doing something wrong and just kept on driving. No one enforces anything that's why we have a revolving door prison system

Answer 7

i do no longer think of that it may well be a criminal offense to disclaim something, inspite of no depend if that place is authentic or fake, sane or insane. If somebody desires to have faith that the international is administered b extensive lizards in hide, why could the state intrude? with the aid of actuality that your question is obviously pertaining to Holocaust denial, i in my opinion think of that Holocaust deniers could the two be kept away from or ridiculed. yet another significant element to recollect... the superb to unfastened speech does no longer mean one is entitled to a minimum of one's pastime and if, to illustrate, the denier in question is a instructor and loses his pastime with the aid of those perspectives, such an action by utilising his employers is carefully justifiable.

Answer 8

pretty much not.

we have in washington d.c. the lowest moral fibre americans making laws for the rest of us.

a stupider system of governing i can't even think of.

americans need to get control over the rampant corruption in our own govt before it's too late.

Answer 9

carry and conceal permits.