The debate on whether the government should prioritize crime prevention measures or focus more on enforcing stricter law, reflects two significant approaches in dealing with crime, and there are several arguments why these two groups dispute.
On one hand, proponents of the idea that the government should apply the preventive measure argue that it is better to prevent crimes before they happen, as they will reduce the casualty. The preventive actions can be conducted through several mediums such as educational campaigns and community involvement. One thing that needs to be highlighted in imposing certain strategies to fight against crimes is that damage caused by crime is an irreversible act. To illustrate, the dead cannot be brought to life in a murder case. It is commonly understood that the punishment which is given to the felony is not an act of revenge. Therefore in many cases, victims are not satisfied with the outcome of the trial. Some might consider prevention ineffective. However, in a long period, this method might be beneficial in protecting the community.
On the other hand, others view that strict law enforcement is better because it will alarm the felony that any conducted crimes will get severe punishment. Applying harsh law, such as capital punishment for heinous perpetrators such as corruptors, murderers or drug dealers, will send a strong message and prevent others from performing such behavior. In addition, this method is quite practical and effective to be applied in a short period.
In my opinion, looking at all the arguments, the balance approach will be the best option. While preventive actions might help to tackle long-term issues, imposing strict law will give an instant deterrence effect.