Crime is a big problem in the world: many believe that nothing can be done to prevent it. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Lately, the government of many big cities around the world have begun to debate whether prevention as a public policy has been bringing out the expected outcomes.

Furthermore

, many of them consider that

this

measure simply does not work,

while

others believe that the success or failure of

this

kind of public initiative has to deal with how they are implemented.

Lastly

, there are those who think that prevention is a must initiative for every government. Those who doubt the results of

such

measures plea that they do not attack the real problem which is the criminal organizations and drug cartels who are the principal responsible for the most number of crime cases in big metropolises. They affirm that government forces are the best tool for authorities to fight against

such

organizations. There is another fraction which feels that the key is how you put in motion these initiatives, based on achievable goals, on time and on budget implementation which can be complied with and delivered the expected outcomes. The

last

group, think that these kinds of measures must be always implemented,

along with

others

such

as increasing the number of policemen per hundred citizens and increasing surveillance of dangerous neighbourhoods among others.

To sum up

and given the arguments aforementioned, in my opinion, prevention is a useful initiative to avoid the risk of individuals committing crimes.

However

, as it is a risk we cannot expect it to completely work and it must be accompanied by some other policies that allow big cities to fight against crime.