Some people think that with combined effort on the part of government and society crime can be completed 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?

As we all know,

crime

has always been existing from the past. Part of some community argues that with cooperation between government and the society

crime

can be fully managed, while others think that it's impossible to achieve. In

this

essay, I will discuss both sides of the topic in my latter view.

Firstly

, a society without

crime

lives in peace. People are trustworthy and rely on each other, so they do not have to worry about being lied

.

Change preposition

to.

show examples

Also

, the load of the government could decrease and may focus more on other developments.

For instance

, the maintenance fees for prisons could be cut down if there have no criminals, and the taxes could be used for improving other developments

such

as enforcing research on global warming. So, life does get better, if crimes don't exist.

On the other hand

, sometimes, it is completely hypothetical that

crime

can vanish. Because

crime

has been present in the past. 

For example

, in the history that we had learnt, there was evidence proving that

crime

does exist, and as for justice.

Besides

, in the field of psychology, people tend to have two faces, sometimes they would fall into it after being allure.

Thus

,

crime

could

also

be a reminder for others not to take on the path. In the conclusion,

although

if

Add an article

the

show examples

crime

could be completely eradicated in

this

era, the world will be more peaceful,

nevertheless

, it is necessary that

crime

exist in order to maintain the harmonious as a reminder. In my opinion, it's unrealistic that the world could be without

crime

due to there could have bait to let people on the hook.