The question that begs an answer is whether it is easier to make it impossible for individuals to commit crimes. Therefore commit crimes should be distinguished from depriving individuals of their rights and freedom (Rich 2). Notably this an increasing real issue. For instance, there had been funding of various programs to prevent a crime of drinking drive not by putting in place stiffer punishments but rather practically making it impossible to commit crimes. One of the programs is Driver Alcohol detection system for safety, Dadss. The programs are installed in vehicle technology which automatically monitors alcohol level in the blood of the driver, and when that level is detected to be above the limit, then it presents the car from starting. There is no perfect crime prevention. Rather all crime prevention disrupts individuals’ rights and freedoms including a choice to commit an offense.
The program of Dadss is part of perfect crime prevention that is illegal and unreasonable. The reason being it deprives the people an opportunity and the choice to commit an offense. Also, the transport system has put in place technology that shares data about vehicles and traffic lights to make it difficult for vehicles to speed. There is much application of technology to prevent people from committing crimes (Rich 3). However, it is believed that such technologies compel people to live by two interests where one is a desire for safety and security. On the other hand, stays the person’s right to act freely and enjoy every bit of their rights.
It should be noted that the conventional crime prevention considers both interests first by allowing people the freedom to commit the crime but finally punish those people after doing it (Crawford 4). Therefore, people should be given a chose to commit a crime for the reason some security agencies may abuse people’s rights and freedom. In this sense, the perfect crime prevention labors to delve into precisely how far people’s freedom extends. The implication is that the law does not allow people to drink drive only, but it should put into considerations the freedom of the person.
There should be a distinction between actions and thoughts. A conventional rule in law maintains that there is no crime committed without the elements of the act. As a matter of fact, the criminal law examines at the intention and the act itself (Rich 4). Incidentally, mere though thoughts, irrespective how horrific they may be, are not sufficient. Indeed, it is difficult to regulate thoughts because everyone has a right to think whatever they would wish without interference from the government (Crawford 3). For known crimes such as robbery, rape, and arson among others, the law demands that should have certain guilty state of mind to determine intent or negligence. However, there are certain categories of crimes which are not allowed regardless of the state of mind of the actor. These are called strict liability crimes which includes drunken driving.
Therefore, applying technology to prohibit committing a crime will only affect the statue but not burden the individual’s freedom. The reason is that there is no mental state needed to be guilty of the crime. Since the security agencies are not allowed to interfere with individual’s thoughts, perfect crime prevention is not a good option for most offense (Rich 6). An offense like murder would require the capacity to determine the thoughts of the person to check their mental state.
In conclusion. Perfect crime prevention may not be suitable for preventing certain offense. However, it may recommend if it is properly implemented. Nonetheless, for most crimes, the threats and interference of personal freedom may not allow the justification of this approach. This does not mean that people are allowed to commit the crime. Instead, perfect crime prevention threatens people’s rights and freedoms, even if such thoughts turn to crime.
Rich, Michael. “The Perfect Non-Crime” NYTimes.com. New York Times, 6 Aug. 12 Web. 10 Aug. 12.
Crawford, Adam, and Karen Evans. Crime prevention and community safety. Oxford University Press, 2017.