crime reduction by education
The question of whether crime reduction will be achieved more effectively through legal education for youngsters instead of tightening the laws has become a matter of debate. In my opinion, I disagree with this view as I consider that both approaches have their own distinctive merits and should each play an integral role in tackling crime.
On the one hand, I would argue that strict laws are effective and immediate measures in dealing with criminals. One reason is that they will serve as a deterrence and helps the potential offenders understand the severe consequences to bear if they break the law. This would help decrease the crime rates in the country as people know that they will face loss of freedom, social isolation, and separation from their loved ones if they involve in criminal acts. Another reason is that severe punishments will create fear in the mind of the wrongdoers and prevent them from committing similar crimes again. Whereas loose law enforcement makes them feel free to recommit their bad deeds, stricter regulations would ensure the offenders will not dare to offense against the law in the future.
On the other hand, I consider that education has a complementary role to play. Firstly, by having some knowledge of the law, students are better prepared to defend themselves. For example, they will be equipped with the abilities and skills to identify and handle situations that may include a crime or cause them to become a victim. Secondly, legal education programs will raise public awareness about crime and law. In the long term, this will also reduce crime as they will not dare to offense against the law after knowing what they will have to suffer.
I believe that providing law education is one essential weapon in the fight against crime, and I disagree that imposing stricter laws alone is a more effective solution to reduce the crime rate.
