Some people think that with combined effort on the part of the government and society, crime can be completely eradicated, while others argue that this is completely hypothetical and that crime has always been present in societies even in ancient times. Compare these two views. Which do you agree with? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer

Offence solving has been listed on the top priority on a global scale. While some individuals believe in the lawlessness reduction to the zero level if the collaborative effort of both the governmental body and the whole community is ensured, others go against

this

and argue that committing crimes has been obvious since the old time period. Personally, while I would provide the comparison between the two distinguished perspectives, I advocate the latter. Those who approving of the extreme wiped – out situation of the code infringement thanks to the unified combination of the top officials and the society could adopt some grounds for their view. To illustrate more, the mandate enforcement agency is in charge of ensuring and enduring the rule strictness through imposing official regulation on constitution - breaking cases. Meanwhile, the collective ordinary citizens are believed to reach the comprehensive agreement to abide by the legislative implementation, or else there would be some chaotic protesting incidents which disrupt the social stability. When these two pivotal sides confirm to perform effectively in harmony,

this

could significantly control individual’s behaviours when they are intending to conduct some evil activity.

For example

, there has hardly been any act infringement related to using powerful weapons in Vietnam for the Vietnamese government casts the stringent banning rule using as well as storing dangerous, guns and their national community is

also

afraid of the heavy fine together with the potential danger and so obey the imposed charter

On the other hand

, I strongly argue that eradicating the atrocious level is completely implausible and that misdeed has always been present in societies even in ancient times. To rationalize the former point, there is no doubt that though a powerful combination of trying to obliterate the violation would restrict the level to a certain extent, as mentioned above, for a single individual, there still remain some points of the time when one can hardly manage the raging personal feeling and so easily be uncontrollably evoked with an outraging impatient temper which motives him to take illegal revengeful offence.

Furthermore

, unless the social balance between the rich and the poor is reached, which merely stands theoretical due to human’s endless ambition, little can crimes

such

as robbing or stealing be reduced to the complete zero.

In addition

, the misdemeanour existence has continuously been considered a big issue even in the past or in the contemporary age.

For instance

, as partly rooted from the big gap in society, numerous criminal cases ranging from the lenient crimes like money pocketing to serious ruling infringement,

such

as house vandalism and killing for robbing private property, have been still of a great public concern since the ancient time, regardless of how authoritarian the implemented charter is and how sufficient the public work is in raising people’s awareness to conform to the regulation.