The question whether crime reduction will be achived more effectively through legal education for younger 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 shoule each play an intergral role in society
In the one hand , I would agree that strict laws are effective and immediate measures in dealing with criminals.also this will serve as a deterrence and helps that potential offenders understand the severe consequences to them 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. A second reason is that several punishments will create fear in the mind and prevent them from committing similar crimes again , loose law enforcement makes them feel free to recommit their bad deeds,stricter regulatinos would ensure tho offender 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 casue them to become a victim .legal education programs will also 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 in one essential weapon in the fight against crime ,and I disagree that imposing striter laws aline in a more effective solution to reduce the crime rate .