Persuasive Essay On Anti Crime

1145 Words3 Pages

Who knew it could be possible to be payed to stay out of prison? The age old saying that crime doesn’t pay could prove to be true in an ironic way, pending a bill being passed by the D.C. Council. According to McDermott (2016), “the D.C. Council gave preliminary approval Tuesday to an anti-crime bill that includes a provision that would pay residents who might commit or become the victims of violent crime to stay out of trouble.” My stance on the proposed anti crime bill is clear. I am whole heartedly for the concept of paying potential criminals to stay crime free. At first glance, I was astounded that Washington was considering the bill. The proposed plan is named the anti crime bill and its purpose is to lower crime rates and help victims. …show more content…

The proposed plan was put into use previously in Richmond, California. According to Murphy (2014), “So far, the results have been promising: As this story went to press, 65 of the 68 "fellows" enrolled in the program in the previous 47 months were still alive. One had survived a shooting and three had died. In 2007, when Boggan 's program began, Richmond was America 's ninth most dangerous city, with 47 killings among its 106,000 residents. In 2013, it saw its lowest number of homicides in 33 years, and its homicide rate fell to 15 per 100,000. Rates are dropping nationwide, but not so steeply. (In 2013, nearby Oakland 's homicide rate was 23 per 100,000; Detroit 's was 47 per …show more content…

There are numerous negative aspects to the proposed bill. Firstly, the question of ethics and morals comes into play. In my opinion, it is wrong to pay someone to stop them from committing crimes. The notion of paying criminals to stay crime free almost equates to bribery. Furthermore, paying criminals to stay crime free is not fixing the problem but rather just sweeping it under the rug. The anti crime bill might be even un-ethical because according to Murphy (2014), “white folks like to pat black folks on the head, give 'em a few bucks, and think that their problems will go away. It never happens.” Secondly, when you look at the previous program in Richmond, California, there was the problem that most of the mentors were prior criminals themselves. So they did their best to keep their mentees out of prison which poses a problem. According to Murphy (2014), “Boggan proudly notes that ONS staffers have never testified for or against anyone in court.” Thus, the program’s mentors could be covering up for their

Open Document