The question that begs an answer is whether it is easier to make it impossible for individuals to commit crimes. Therefore, committing crimes should be distinguished from depriving individuals of their rights and freedom (Rich 2). Notably, this is an increasingly real issue. For instance, there has been funding for various programs to prevent the crime of drinking drive, not by putting in place stiffer punishments but rather by practically making it impossible to commit crimes. One of the programs is the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, Dads. The programs are installed in vehicle technology, which automatically monitors alcohol levels in the blood of the driver, and when that level is detected to be above the limit, it prevents 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 offence.
The program of Dads is part of perfect crime prevention that is illegal and unreasonable. The reason is that it deprives people of an opportunity and the choice to commit an offence. 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 are many applications of technology to prevent people from committing crimes (Rich 3). However, it is believed that such technologies compel people to live by two interests: one is a desire for safety and the other for security. On the other hand, the person’s right to act freely and enjoy every bit of their rights.
It should be noted that conventional crime prevention considers both interests first by allowing people the freedom to commit the crime but finally punishing those people after doing it (Crawford 4). Therefore, people should be given a choice to commit a crime for the reason some security agencies may abuse people’s rights and freedom. In this sense, the perfect crime prevention labour is to delve into precisely how far people’s freedom extends. The implication is that the law does not allow people to drink and drive only, but it should take into consideration 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, criminal law examines the intention and the act itself (Rich 4). Incidentally, mere thoughts, irrespective of how horrific they may be, are not sufficient. Indeed, it is difficult to regulate thoughts because everyone has a right to think whatever they wish without interference from the government (Crawford 3). For known crimes such as robbery, rape, and arson, among others, the law demands that one should have a certain guilty state of mind to determine intent or negligence. However, there are certain categories of crimes that are not allowed regardless of the state of mind of the actor. These are called strict liability crimes, which include drunken driving.
Therefore, applying technology to prohibit committing a crime will only affect the statute but not burden the individual’s freedom. The reason is that there is no mental state needed to be guilty of the crime. Since security agencies are not allowed to interfere with individuals’ thoughts, perfect crime prevention is not a good option for most offences (Rich 6). An offence 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 offences. However, it may be recommended 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.
Works Cited
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.
