Crime

Cities should be peaceful places where people pursue their dreams, fulfill their needs and enjoy their lives. People prefer to live in cities since cities can provide more opportunities and better environment. San Francisco used to be a favorable city because of its beautiful scenes, wonderful climate and unique cultural diversity. However, San Francisco has gradually lost its attraction due to the increasing violent crime. The KTSF reported that San Francisco had a 19 percent rise in violent crime from 2005 to 2006, and the homicide rate of San Francisco reached the peak of recent 10 years in September 2006. People who live in San Francisco do not feel safe any more, and their peaceful lives are disturbed by the violent crime. When people are walking on streets, they worry about that they may be attacked or robbed suddenly; when students are taking classes in schools, they are afraid that they will become innocent victims in an unexpected shooting case. In my neighborhood, an African American neighborhood, the public safety is extremely terrible. Many nights, I was woken up by the jarring siren and scream. Many times, I was frightened by the flowers and balloons that were placed at street corners. In San Francisco, the public safety and justice system are facing a critical challenge. The majority of people insist that the government has the responsibility to protect its citizens from the violent crime; conversely, some people argue that individuals should take action to stop the spread of crime. In order to maintain the order of the city, eliminate the fear of residents, both government and individuals should contribute their power to stop the violent crime.

First of all, when a criminal is released from the jail due to a lenient plea bargain, he tends to commit the crime again since he realizes that he can avoid the long jail sentence or severe punishment easily because of plea bargains. It is obvious that the lenient plea bargain contributes to the potential crime, so the government should disapprove lenient plea bargains for violent criminals. Adam Smith says that mercy to guilty is cruelty to the innocent (Sowell, 2003, p. 7). McAlpin Scott case is an appropriate illustration of this point. According to San Francisco Chronicle (Zamora, 2005, p. B. 4), McAlpin Scott, who had eight prior felony convictions for domestic violence, only stayed in the jail less than a year because of the plea bargain. Unfortunately, this plea bargain led

to another cruel murder case. McAlpin murdered his ex-girlfriend and dumped her body in a car trunk after he was released from the jail a month later. This tragedy would have been prevented if the court had disapproved the plea bargain. The severe punishment and long jail sentence are designed for deterring misdeeds. However, the lenient plea bargains weaken the power of severe punishment, lead to the potential misdeeds and cause danger to innocent citizens. As a result, the government should eliminate the abuse of plea bargains.

In addition, a criminal will commit a robbery or burglary in neighborhoods where lack of police presence since this criminal realizes that he will not be arrested immediately by the police officer. It is doubtless that lack of police presence contributes to a surge in crime. More police we have, the less crime there will be. The strong police presence plays an important role of preventing and deterring crime.