Category: Crime

Should the police have unlimited powers when dealing with crime?

In the new movie “Public Enemies”, Johnny Depp plays John Dillinger, the 1930s bank robber and killer who gets hunted down and shot by the newly formed FBI. This seemingly suggests that the government department that was established to maintain order as well as to enforce the law is given a very large amount of authority in the process of law enforcement. However, this is true only to a certain extent because, in reality, the police force does not have such a large amount of power to wield as they wish, and for good reason. Although some argue that the police do not have sufficient authority and that the police force should be given more liberty when faced with powerful criminals like the criminal syndicates, it is inevitable that if given too much of a free rein, the individual members in the police force might be tempted to abuse this power, or even become licensed assassins as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime.
Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.


Indeed, the law enforcers ought to have a greater authority whilst upholding the law, especially in the face of powerful criminals like the crime syndicates. In places like Russia, Japan, Italy, Mexico and China, where the Russian Mafiya, the Japanese Yakuza, the Italian Mafia, Mexican Drug Cartels and the Chinese Triads are considered the five most powerful criminal syndicates according to the Foreign Policy online 2008, it is essential for the police force to have the necessary authority to apprehend them and bring these criminals to justice. This is especially so when these criminal organizations have the ability to reach out to gangsters worldwide. This can be seen in the example whereby wherever there is a Chinatown in the world, the Triad’s tentacles would have reached there to tap into ties – giving them an unprecedented huge network of opportunities to expand their criminal network. With such a huge reach over the many petty criminals worldwide, there is a massive potential for large-scale global crimes to take place. Therefore to prevent this, it is crucial that the police force should be able to match up to, or even hold greater powers that these huge criminal syndicates have so as to able to keep these syndicates in check or to eradicate them entirely.


Some also argue that the police ought to be given more liberty when pursuing petty lawbreakers as they believe that the police do not have enough power to uphold the law. Police power is highly circumscribed by law and departmental policies and they have very little power or control over the situations they are in or the people they encounter. They also cannot use force the vast majority of the time, and when they do, they are subjected to an enormous amount of scrutiny. In the Gallup Poll, an institution that is seen to have too little power is the local police “in your community” (31%). In addition, the poll results show that the oft-cited fear of the power of the police-type units of the federal state, state, and local governments is not as widespread as might be supposed. In fact, at the state and local levels, the prevailing sentiment is clearly that police forces either have the right amount of power or should have even more.


However, the above claim should be refuted since if given too much of a free rein, some members of the police force might be tempted to abuse it to help the criminals get away scot-free in order to reap some rewards. In fact, there have been many cases of police officers abusing their power and accepting bribes from criminals. One case in point is where a number of Colombian police officers were arrested for accepting bribes and returning seized drug to a trafficking group. Furthermore, in Tel Aviv, the second-largest city in Israel, details emerged in April this year of an elaborate criminal scheme to turn police officers into informants on behalf of lawbreakers. The officers were accused of accepting cash bribes to tip off a “serious criminal” who runs brothels and passing on intelligence in ways which are reminiscent of double agents depicted in the Hollywood film The Departed. In a situation where the police were given the right to apprehend law-breakers in order to prevent crime, they abused this right for their own personal gain. In a separate incident, Chicago Police have been accused of using pepper spray without provocation on black people celebrating Obama’s victory on election night and also of kicking in doors and running into people’s houses. They never explained what was going on and simply left when they were done with whatever they were doing. This suggests that the policemen involved in this unfortunate and seemingly racist incident simply rode on the fact that they were in the uniform and took advantage of the authority that the uniform gives them in order to carry out unexplained acts of harassment on the target citizens. Since power can be so easily made use of, it is then unwise to entrust unlimited powers to the police.


In addition, the police might become licensed assassins if they are given too much power as they might become as irrational and brutal as convicts in their attempt to resolve a crime. In the UK TV program “Worst Police Shootouts”, viewers were shocked rigid by the gratuitous legalised murder fest that ensued. Five or six cases were shown, each of which ended in the ‘perpetrator’ being shot, usually to death. In one video, a middle-aged lady ran out of her house on a suburban street, obviously in some kind of distress, waving a short kitchen knife. The two attending cops panicked and shot her when she ran towards one of them, panicked and shot her, thinking that she was about to attack them. All the other cases featured followed much the same pattern. Should these cases be considered as ‘legalised murders’ then? Maybe, if the killings were entirely accidental, but if the police use their given authority to behave as they wish while patrolling or chasing criminals, then many more innocent people will be injured or killed in their reckless line of duty. Therefore, since many police force members have already harmed so many people with the current level of authority that they have, it is definitely imprudent assign even greater powers for the police to wield.

To conclude, as Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt once said, “If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter.” It thus can be said that with the current level of power that the police possess, it is already being abused or used in the wrong way. Therefore, the notion that the police should be given more power should not be encouraged as it may result in disastrous results.

Should the death penalty be used to punish violent criminals?

The death penalty’s validity has been debated by many countries for decades. Out of 150 countries, about 80 of them have abolished the death penalty, as these countries often share the sentiment that it is a violation of human rights. Yet others maintain the view that it is necessary for violent criminals, such as murderers, to be put to death, for the good of society. I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals since the harm that they cause deserves a fitting punishment.

Firstly, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty in order to serve as a form of deterrence. By sentencing such criminals to death, it is a demonstration of the consequences of committing the crimes they did and highlighting the severity of their crimes. Thus, it discourages people in a country from thinking of committing similar crimes, or from committing them in the first place, thus reducing the possibility of people becoming victims of violent crimes. Additionally, it serves as a warning to foreigners who are visiting countries that enforce the death penalty to not commit crimes punishable by death in those countries, reducing the probability of foreigners hurting others within those countries. For example, Kho Jabing, a Malaysian man who killed a coworker in Singapore in 2010, was hanged in 2016 despite his Malaysian lawyers pleading for a life sentence instead of execution. Hence, it can be seen as a warning to citizens of other countries to refrain from committing such crimes in Singapore, and as a form of deterrence. Therefore, the death penalty ought to be used for punishing violent criminals.

Secondly, the death penalty for violent criminals can be seen as a form of justice, for the victims of violent crimes, as well as their families. Violent crimes such as murder (attempted murder and actual murder) and rape can cause lasting psychological damage – on victims who survived the violent crimes, and on the families of both living and deceased victims, severely reducing their quality of life and violating their human rights. The death penalty’s usage to punish violent criminals will often be of comfort to living victims and victims’ families, giving them hope that the one who brought so much pain and suffering will not get away scot-free. Humans are often vengeful by nature, and there is a sense of gratification in seeing these criminals get their ‘deserved’ comeuppance. For instance, in the case of Jeffery Dahmer, who murdered and sexually assaulted the corpses of his victims – all of which were young males, aged 14 to 28 – he was not sentenced to death, but instead jailed for life, greatly upsetting the families of his victims. In my opinion, he should have been punished via the death penalty for his senseless acts of violence; his jail term did not do justice for his victims. Thus the death penalty should indeed be used to punish violent criminals.

Human rights advocates, however, often argue that the death penalty, even when used on violent criminals, is a violation of the rights of such criminals. Since they are human, they are entitled to human rights, and the death penalty violates Article 3 of the United Nations (UN) Declaration of Human Rights – the right to live. Additionally, while most methods of execution are designed to be as quick and painless as possible, executions can often be botched, such as in the August 2014 execution of Clayton Lockett, who shot and buried alive a 19-year-old girl (who eventually died) and raped her friend. Although he was to die via lethal injection, as sentenced by the court in the United States of America, he took 43 minutes to die as compared to the normal 2-3 minutes. This was because the first injection failed, while the second injection took over 16 tries due to the executioner being unable to insert the needle – which was the wrong size. As a result, Lockett suffered excruciating pain until death from the chemical coursing through his body, alongside the needle pricking him numerous times. This prolonging of his execution, albeit unintentional, was seen as a violation of Article 5 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, that no one should be tortured. Thus it is often argued that no matter how violent and terrible the crimes were, such criminals should not be executed due to human rights and the possibility of them suffering from botched or prolonged executions.

Nevertheless, I hold my view that violent criminals should be punished by the death penalty since these criminals forfeited their human rights when they hurt others in their crimes. In the case of murderers, for example, since the murderers have taken the lives of others, violating the victims’ human rights in the process, they no longer have the right to be human in the first place. In a June 2016 survey in Singapore, conducted on 1,160 Singaporeans, over 80% approved the use of the death penalty, citing reasons such as the fact that those who commit violent crimes have given up their humanity as a key factor to them showing approval for the death penalty. Even with the possibility of the execution being accidentally prolonged due to mistake, it could be said that this is ‘karma’, since they have hurt others and made them suffer, their own deaths should be painful as well. Hence, violent criminals should be punished via the death penalty for their inhumane actions even (and especially) if they suffer during the execution process.

It has also been argued that the death penalty gives no opportunity for these violent criminals to atone for their crimes, as it takes their lives away – if they were still living, they would be able to repent (if they were truly remorseful). Humans, having the ability to show mercy and compassion, should do so as often as possible, and using the death penalty, no matter how ‘justifiable’ due to the severity of the crimes, could possibly be considered ‘evil’.

While the argument that the taking away of the opportunity for atonement is true, it is also highly unlikely that someone who committed a violent crime would be remorseful – in many cases, their intent to inflict harm was present and thus they would not regret committing the crime. The death penalty can also be considered a ‘necessary evil’, in order to maintain the peace of a society. Since good governments have the responsibility to do what is right and beneficial for the country, using the death penalty to punish violent criminals would be necessary for the good of the majority. Hence I believe that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals.

Not all violent crimes, in reality, are punishable by death. For instance, some sex crimes and domestic abuse are considered violent crimes, yet those convicted are not punished via the death penalty. As of now, the death penalty is often used on violent criminals only when their actions caused deaths, and even so, they may only get life sentences. All in all, I hope that it will be more recognised that the death penalty should be used to punish violent criminals and that it will be extended to crimes where severe violence has been carried out and the victims are still alive.

Young Offenders should be given a second chance. Do you agree?

In the world of today, the young are subjected to all sorts of influences, be it positive or negative. Friends, television programmes, movies and games inoculate the young with trends, attitudes and thinking. With the mind of the young still undergoing development, such influence affects their actions, and the fact that much of the content of the media consists of violence and crime, it is inevitable that the young commit offences. In recent times, the number of young offenders is on the rise and punishment is employed to reduce crime by young people. Should young offenders be given a second chance? I believe so for the most part.

First of all, these young offenders– first-time offenders no less– are but young individuals aged thirteen to nineteen. Their minds are still undergoing development and are not very capable of rational thinking. As such, they more than likely did not mean to commit their first crime. If they understood the situation and consequences, things will be very different. A study by the American Youth Foundation shows that at least two-thirds of all young first-time offenders committed their crime simply because they were either not thinking clearly, subjected to peer pressure or being unaware that it is a crime, to begin with; reasons displaying a lack of rational thinking. It is unjust to punish one when one was not thinking rationally or did not mean to commit the offence in the first place. It is the same as subjecting chastisement to a toddler for flaunting vulgarities. Simply put, it is not fair. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance as they are not very capable of rational thinking since their minds are still developing and it is unfair to punish them.

Secondly, by punishing them when their minds are still undergoing development, a scar will be etched into their minds. In this way, we are forcing them to link the committing of offences to pain and suffering. These methods are barbaric. We can not possibly employ methods we use on beasts of burden to young people. For instance, we whip horses to run faster and beat cows that leave the boundary designated by the farmer. These animals feel the pain and link their so-called “wrongdoings” to the abovementioned pain. Treating animals like this is bad enough; to do the same to a fellow human is reprehensible. Instead of punishing them on their first offence, counselling should be employed. Not only will they be fully aware of their crime and learn from it, but it is also humane. Therefore, young offenders should be given a second chance and not be blindly punished simply because they broke a law.

Thirdly, young offenders should be given a second chance as it is their first offence. By punishing them, we are refusing their right to fully comprehend the severity of their crime. By doing so, they are simply suffering although they do not know why, potentially leading them to a repeat offence, or even leading them to be recalcitrant offenders. The whole point of punishment is to prevent young offenders from repeating their crime. If the young offenders repeat their crime, the purpose of punishment is defeated. A study done by the Juvenile Court in Britain has shown that at least three-quarters of repeat offenders committed their crime a second time as they were punished on their first offence and were not entirely clear why thus spurring them to repeat the same offence a second time. Indeed, it is ludicrous to punish young offenders on their first offence. Instead, counselling should be employed as mentioned above. Only then will the young offender be completely aware of their wrongdoings and prevent history from repeating itself. Therefore, young offenders should be granted a second chance as punishing them on their first offence proves to be an ineffective way of preventing them from repeating their offence.

Still, it is not logical to let them be scot-free on their first offence. It really depends on the offence. Exonerating a teenage boy for committing murder is exorbitant. Therefore, they can only be granted a second chance if their crime is minor enough to warrant a chance, such as stealing or shoplifting. However, since most of the first-time offences are minor, it is logical to grant young offenders a second chance in general. Statistics by the Singapore Police Force shows that at least 2% of all crimes committed by young people are severe enough to warrant severe punishment, such as manslaughter or murder. Therefore, since such a small percentage of crimes committed by young people are severe, second chances should be granted to the first time, young offenders.

In conclusion, I believe that young offenders should be given a second chance for the most part as their minds are still undergoing development which undermines their ability to think rationally, it is their first offence, most of the crimes are minor, to begin with, it is only moral to use humane methods and it is their right to be fully aware of their crime and punishing them on their first offence is unjust. This second chance should be coupled with counselling so that they may be fully aware of the severity of their crime and prevent a repeat in history.