Amazon.com Widgets

Is the law tough on crime (yes) or just tough on criminals (no)?

  • Law is tough on crime

    I think the law is designed to be more tough on the crime itself and not necessarily those criminals who decide to break the law. I think if they do end up breaking the law, then the situation turns over the other way, especially if it's a major law being broken.

  • I think it's tough on crime, for the most part.

    I think that the law is more tough on crime then it is tough on criminals. We do try to make sure that crimes are taken care of and try to reduce crime as much as possible. However, if you have a lot of money or if you are a certain race, you won't be treated as harshly as others, which is wrong.

  • Tough on criminals.

    The law is tough on criminals, but no so much on the actual crimes. The law is not doing anything to prevent these crimes from happening, and is only dealing with the criminals after the crime has been committed. The law needs to focus on being tough on the crimes.

  • The law seems to focus on crimals more than crime

    I believe that the law is more focused on the criminal as an individual than on the actual crime that is occurring. If some of the attention was given to crime in general there could be various ways that the crime could possibly be prevented. The criminal is important, but there would be no criminal if crime was decreased.

  • No tough on criminals.

    I think the law is tough on criminals not tough on crime. I think if it was more tough on crime that would mean the amount of crime going on would decrease by quite a bit and people would be less willing to commit the crimes in the first place.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.