The growing number of crimes is an alarming issue and sparked a significant debate. To a certain extent, I agree that the police might be the sole option for supervising the streets and alleviating the rate of crimes. However, I believe that police might not be qualified enough to control all the streets worldwide, as there are a few streets.
On the one hand, police staff can play a pivotal role in controlling some types of crimes such as robbery in markets, bankruptcy, arson, burglary, or antisocial behaviors in streets. For example, according to statistics on street crimes, the number of incidents is lower where police control than unsupervised ones. Secondly, the number of police in a single street might intimidate the criminals, and intervene in the committence of crimes. For instance, there are several well-known and luxurious places all over the world, which include expensive restaurants, markets, and jewelry, and the number of police is higher on these streets. Therefore, these streets are less vulnerable to crimes and undergo crimes less than others.
On the other hand, police might not control all the crimes all the streets, regardless of their number. To illustrate, crimes such as online fraud, and rape, and especially rural crimes might happen in areas far away from the cities, or unseen places. Additionally, instead if focusing on the number of police in a single city, the government might focus on implementing some targeted interventions such as improving the GPS systems, cameras, or the warnings in some companies. To elucidate, some markets, or buildings have upgraded checking systems, which control the tools on a person, identify the identity, and reduce the risks of crimes.
In conclusion, the rise in the rate of crimes is an alarming issue. I firmly believe that the number of police is higher than the number of cities, and police might not supervise all crimes every time. Instead of raising the number of police, the streets can upgrade their camera or GPS.
