Agreement and Disagreement Essay
To establish crime policy, proponents and opponents will be presented. This essay will discuss two propositions, an agreement and a disagreement. I agree with the proposition waging war is the wrong way to fight crime (Walker, 2001, pp. xiii). I accept this proposition as valid, and will explain how it should be incorporated into criminal justice policy. I disagree with the proposition simply adding more police officers will not reduce crime (Walker, 2001, pp. xiii). I will explain this disagreement and provide reference to my own experiences to support this position.
Is waging war the wrong way to fight crime? My stand on this is YES. I believe that war is initially motivated by hatred of the enemy or revenge or some of the other motives above it. This makes it easy to regard the enemy as less than human making it much more likely atrocities and war crimes will be committed. In reality a good intention could be bound up with a bad one. If the only way to keep peace or the only way to pay for a crime is to capture some of the enemy 's territory does a country 's intention to fight crime make the war an unjust one? There is also another condition of war that is mainly religious in origin. If a person, or the people making up a state, wage war from the wrong motives they endanger their soul because god will know that they have done wrong and punish them appropriately. I think we must be careful when incorporating war into criminal justice policy, because the doctrine of a Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just; it is actually a good thing (Walker, 2001). A just war is allowed because it is considered a lesser evil. I would prefer the word fight over war in a written policy to reduce the chances of misinterpretation and war crimes.
Next, will simply adding more police officers not reduce crime (Walker, 2001)? My stand on this is NO. From my experiences there are advantages to increasing the number of officers in certain situations.
Is waging war the wrong way to fight crime? My stand on this is YES. I believe that war is initially motivated by hatred of the enemy or revenge or some of the other motives above it. This makes it easy to regard the enemy as less than human making it much more likely atrocities and war crimes will be committed. In reality a good intention could be bound up with a bad one. If the only way to keep peace or the only way to pay for a crime is to capture some of the enemy 's territory does a country 's intention to fight crime make the war an unjust one? There is also another condition of war that is mainly religious in origin. If a person, or the people making up a state, wage war from the wrong motives they endanger their soul because god will know that they have done wrong and punish them appropriately. I think we must be careful when incorporating war into criminal justice policy, because the doctrine of a Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just; it is actually a good thing (Walker, 2001). A just war is allowed because it is considered a lesser evil. I would prefer the word fight over war in a written policy to reduce the chances of misinterpretation and war crimes.
Next, will simply adding more police officers not reduce crime (Walker, 2001)? My stand on this is NO. From my experiences there are advantages to increasing the number of officers in certain situations.
References: Walker, S. (2001). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs. (pp. xiii). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson.