Essay Crime

Some people who have been in prison become good citizens later, and it is often argued that these are the best people to talk to teenagers about the dangers of committing a crime.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is true that ex-prisoners can become normal, productive members of society. I completely agree with the idea that allowing such people to speak to teenagers about their experiences is the best way to discourage them from breaking the law.

In my opinion, teenagers are more likely to accept advice from someone who can speak from experience. Reformed offenders can tell young people about how they became involved in crime, the dangers of a criminal lifestyle, and what life in prison is really like. They can also dispel any ideas that teenagers may have about criminals leading glamorous lives. While adolescents are often indifferent to the guidance given by older people, I imagine that most of them would be extremely keen to hear the stories of an ex-offender. The vivid and perhaps shocking nature of these stories is likely to have a powerful impact.

The alternatives to using reformed criminals to educate teenagers about crime would be much less effective. One option would be for police officers to visit schools and talk to young people. This could be useful in terms of informing teens about what happens to lawbreakers when they are caught, but young people are often reluctant to take advice from figures of authority. A second option would be for school teachers to speak to their students about crime, but I doubt that students would see teachers as credible sources of information about this topic. Finally, educational films might be informative, but there would be no opportunity for young people to interact and ask questions.

In conclusion, I fully support the view that people who have turned their lives around after serving a prison sentence could help to deter teenagers from committing crimes.

In many cities the use of video cameras in public places is being increased in order to reduce crime, but some people believe that these measures restrict our individual freedom.
Do the benefits of increased security outweigh the drawbacks?

It is true that video surveillance has become common in many cities in recent years. While I understand that critics may see this as an invasion of privacy, I believe that the benefits do outweigh the drawbacks.

There are two main reasons why people might disapprove of the use of video cameras in public places. The first objection is that these cameras invade our privacy, in the sense that we are constantly being watched by the authorities or by private security firms. Many people find this intrusive and feel that the recording of their movements is a form of state control that curtails their individual freedom. The second argument against the proliferation of CCTV cameras is that they are being used as an alternative to police officers patrolling the streets. If this is indeed happening, then it is unlikely that members of the public will feel safer.

In spite of the drawbacks mentioned above, I believe that the use of video cameras to monitor public areas is a positive measure. The key objective of video surveillance is to deter criminals and to prevent crime. For example, petty criminals like shoplifters and pickpockets are less likely to operate in parts of cities where they know that they are being watched. At the same time, when crimes are committed, the police can use video evidence to catch and prosecute offenders. Therefore, in my view, video cameras offer valuable support to police officers, and they make cities safer for inhabitants, workers and visitors alike.

In conclusion, it seems to me that we gain more than we lose from the enhanced security that CCTV cameras bring to our cities.