Some people believe more actions can be taken to prevent crime, while others think that little can be done. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion

Many concerned parties today feel that crime has already been reduced as much as is realistically possible.

While

I agree

this

may be true in nations where security is prioritized over privacy rights, there are still tremendous issues about evil in the rest countries. Those who argue case no longer needs addressing point to technological innovations.

This

situation is most apparent in authoritarian nations. Security surveillance can include the use of cameras in communities, and eavesdropping on private communications. As technology advances, evil can't do much in the current technological age. So the police and defenders of social order are quite leisurely and the people don't worry much about the corruption rate.

In addition

, there are conservatives who believe that the modern high-tech age is not safe enough yet. They think that the era of advanced technology can still be easily overcome by criminals and the breach rate is still at an alarming level before, so they think that more action is needed, and more people are needed to prevent misdeeds from increasing. In conclusion, though technology has reduced certain kinds of criminality greatly, it is still possible to lower crime rates by embracing a holistic, societal approach. The complete eradication of crime is likely impossible and

therefore

there will always be a need to make progress