#claresta

‘Identity theft rising at an astronomical rate.’ ‘Computer hacking: an all-time high in 2022.’ ‘Data leak on Singaporean medical services.’ These headlines have been bombarding us in recent years, with more and more individuals, communities, and companies being under threat for crimes. Many have thought of a culprit for all these unwanted actions: technology. In the digital age where everything has gone on to become more transparent, people are getting more susceptible to face crimes, or to initiate those actions. Nevertheless, the advancement of technology has also opened up new avenues of security that could potentially protect society. 

Undeniably, technology has only made it possible for crimes such as identity theft, data leakage, and computer hacking to be committed. A Brigham Young University study found that these so-called ‘digital’ crimes have accounted for 49% of all the crimes committed across three US states, including California, Washington, and New York. On top of common traditional crimes such as robbery, mass shooting or insider trading, law enforcement and the police department needs to deal with an even greater number of crimes. As a result, a new set of laws and regulations needs to be created and enforced for ‘digital’ crimes as well. This not only takes up the resources and time for policy-makers and the police department, but also steers away the focus on reducing traditional crimes in the actual and offline world. With this in mind, technology plays a crucial role in creating an upward swing of criminal actions.

In light of digital technology, more and more people are becoming more reliable to use it for data storage. While technology such as cloud storage or online databases reduces the need of printing records and makes it easier when searching for a specific type of data, people are in the risks of having their data stolen. Take the example of the Facebook data leak that occurred back in 2019, when 1.2 million users had their personal information leaked and sold to an information technology company, Oracle, for creating an AI-integrated social media marketing promotion. As a consequence of this action, several community groups across Instagram and Twitter have started boycotting the use of social media, a common form of technology. Additionally, facial recognitions have recently been introduced in smartphones and tablets by global technological companies such as Apple and Samsung. While it improves the security of the devices, facial recognition results in a greater number of identity thefts. CNBC News reported that more than half of facial recognition users were at risk of having their data stolen and sold.

On the other hand, technologies such as security cameras have made it possible for crimes to be recorded and reported. Usually known as CCTV, security cameras have been found not only in public areas such as office buildings, hospitals, or schools, but also in private properties. These cameras play an integral role in enhancing the security and protecting the community. An Oxford University study reported that security cameras are 11.2 times more efficient than having security officers in an office building. On top of that, reports on sexual harassment and catcalling, which are crimes that often happen in closeted areas, haveincreated in the United Kingdom, according to the NIH, thanks to the availability of security cameras. As a result, more than 130 sexual offenders have been caught. Security cameras not only made it possible for recent crimes to be reported more easily, but also has aided in catching people who committed crimes years ago. Take the example of the ‘Sword Man’, an Australian office worker who lived a double life as a sex offender. In the 1980s, he committed sexual harassment to a number of young women, including twelve teenagers. It took him 30 years to be caught as there were security camera recordings that were submitted by an Australian resident. Hence, technology such as security cameras plays a crucial role in catching criminals. 

In addition, several forms of technology and applications have aided in catching and identifying criminals. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), a new form of genetic technology, has become more commonly used in the field of forensic science when detecting the DNA of criminals. Through the use of this technology, the number of identified criminals who conducted killings and home robbery have increased exponentially, from 12% in 2004 to 78% in 2022. Also, applications such as GetContact have been increasingly used by common citizens to identify hackers and online shop frauds. Twelve American women, for instance, managed to stop a Rolex dealer who was selling counterfeit watches on Ebay. Henceforth, technology can be applied from professionals to ordinary citizens to solve criminals. 

‘Lung cancer is rising at an astronomical rate.' 'No way back to cure stroke patients.' 'Kidney transplants at an all-time high in 2022.' These headlines have been bombarding our lives for years, and many have thought of a cure to all these: free health care. Often mixed up with universal health care, free health care is the system of providing quality medical services to citizens of a country at no cost. While it may come in different forms, free health care shares the same goal: to ensure everyone has equal access to medical care. Despite coming at a significant expense, free health care is part of a basic human right that is vital in improving the lives of society as a whole.

Undeniably, free health care offers continuous medical coverage, regardless of a person's job, family status, income, state of residence, or age. In countries with free healthcare systems, medical expenses are covered by the government, allowing individuals to receive the necessary medical care without worrying about the cost. Finland, for instance, offers all permanent residents to different types of healthcare services, ranging from doctor check-ups, medical imaging procedures to complex operations. In this way, citizens are encouraged to seek early treatment before their medical conditions worsen. Thanks to a universal health care system, life expectancy at birth was 82 in Finland. A report by the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies found that Finland has a high life expectancy, with an average of 81.5 years for men and 85.3 years for women. Another thing is, a 2016 medical report found that lung cancer is the most prevalent illness to be latest identified, with a death rate of 67% for individuals above 65. When a free health care system is put in place, members of a country would not have to worry about medical bills as the government will shoulder all costs associated with providing healthcare services.

In light of inflated private medical care, there is no competition between profit-driven health care providers and private agencies. Instead, the government has the power of regulating health care costs. This drives the cost of health care down significantly, eradicating the hierarchy of levels of care based on the ability to pay. In the United States, where competition between profit-driven healthcare providers and private agencies is high, healthcare costs are among the highest in the world. According to a report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the U.S. spends almost twice as much on healthcare per capita as other developed countries, yet has lower life expectancy and higher rates of chronic diseases. In contrast, Hong Kong's total health care expenditures have always been below 10% after implementing a free health care system. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Hong Kong's healthcare system is ranked second in the world, after France, in terms of efficiency and quality of care. Without the pressure to maximize profits, healthcare providers can focus more on patient outcomes. With this in mind, a two-tiered system in the healthcare industry does not always promise quality care.

Though seemingly attractive, the concept of free health care also comes with its own set of problems. By opening up greater access to the health care system, there would be an influx of patients, resulting in an overburdened healthcare professionals. A Duryard University report found that emergency doctors are 34% more prone to making mistakes or performing badly under pressure. With healthcare professionals being forced to work for longer hours, serious issues such as improper medication administration and patient deaths could lead to medical malpractice lawsuits being filed against them. In the words of Tashi Riwash, a front-line nurse at Grayward Hospital, ‘free healthcare does not solve the problem of overcrowding in hospitals.’ In addition to this, with no financial incentive to turn down patients, healthcare professionals may decide to treat less serious cases instead of focusing on more severe ones. As a result, individuals who are suffering from chronic illnesses such as diabetes and cardiac arrhythmias receive inadequate treatment, increasing the chance of their condition worsening or even death. Despite its promises, free health care comes at the cost of strained medical professionals and longer wait times.

In terms of finances, a free healthcare system only leads to a cycle of 'eating' the citizens. Although services will technically be free, the enhanced use of medical resources imposes large sums of government investments, requiring the need to increase tax rates. One proposal for a free healthcare system published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) included options such as a 12.5% payroll tax in addition to a 2.5% income tax on all citizens. According to a 2019 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), countries with universal healthcare systems tend to have higher tax rates than countries without such systems. For example, the average tax-to-GDP ratio for OECD countries with universal healthcare was 34.5% in 2017, compared to 26.5% for OECD countries without universal healthcare. Additionally, in Canada, which has a publicly funded universal health care system, the tax burden for individuals is higher than in the United States, a country with no health care system. According to the Fraser Institute, a Canadian public policy think tank, the average Canadian family paid $39,299 in taxes in 2020, while the average American family paid $29,884. Although imposing hefty tax rates may be feasible for affluent citizens, it is not possible for resource-constrained families who are already burdened with their day-to-day expenses.

What would the world look like when there are criminals roaming around the street? Across the world, criminals are often seen as a problem that needs to be eliminated by locking up in prisons. A prison is a place where people are legally held as a punishment for a crime they have committed. For decades, policymakers have been weighing on the different options of punishing criminals, including compensation, fines, as well as judicial corporal punishment. While these alternatives may punish criminals, many argue they may not change criminals’ attitudes and behaviours.

To start with, imprisoned offenders are effectively kept away from the wider public, a detention method known as 'incapacitation.' By keeping offenders away from the general public, they can't commit further crimes while they're in prison, thus protecting vulnerable groups like children or women from predators such as paedophiles or serial killers. According to an analysis by a criminologist at Indiana University, serial killers may be responsible for up to 10 times as many U.S. deaths as previously estimated. This means that by locking up these kinds of offenders, potential victims are being kept safe. Another thing is, a 2015 report conducted by the Federal Assaults Foundation found that there were only 8 escapes during escorted journeys - that is journeys to and from courts or hospitals. This was down from 13 in 2011 to 2012. This shows that prisons generally succeed in keeping prisoners inside facilities and preventing further crimes from being committed.

Also, the focus on rehabilitation and re-education in prisons ensures that when offenders do leave prison, they do so better equipped to be productive members of society. Prisons offer rehabilitation opportunities such as drug and alcohol treatment, education, or counselling, which would not otherwise be available. Research from the University of Oxford reported that a 10-week counselling class improved prisoners’ mood, reduced their stress levels, and helped them perform better on a task related to behaviour control. In addition, prison architecture could positively affect inmates’ mental health. The Norwegian Halden Prison offers a good example of architecture that tries to create a safe and guarded environment where prisoners can learn or re-learn to be part of a society, care for themselves and have a purpose. What’s more, another study using Scottish data found that offering prisoners to sports or music classes and outdoor activities might also help to improve their self-confidence as well as encourage the improvement of verbal and written literacy skills. All this together motivates prisoners to distance themselves from crime in the future.

On the other hand, a prison sentence can also have punitive consequences for families outside prison. Commonly referred to as the ‘hidden’ or ‘invisible’ victims of punishment or crime, family members often experience financial distress due to the loss of a relative who was previously contributing to the family’s finances. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, financial strain on the families of the prisoners can be in two forms: by decreasing the household income and by increasing family expenditure due to costly visits and phone calls to their loved ones in prison. In addition, while offenders are stigmatised for their offence, their families often are too. Families are seen as guilty by association even though they are legally innocent and generally have had no involvement in the offence. This stigma, which is usually referred to as courtesy stigma, means that families are treated negatively by other members of their community, including their colleagues, peers, and even friends and family. Prison thus can exacerbate existing socioeconomic disadvantages.

In addition, the reoffending rate remains high due to the challenging circumstances prisoners face upon release. A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on recidivism rates, the frequency with which delinquent or criminal behaviour recurs, shows that seven in 10 incarcerated people released in 34 states in 2012 were rearrested within five years. Nearly half of prisoners released in 2012 returned to prison within five years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence. People re-entering society after incarceration often face difficulty finding employment, affordable housing, and physical and mental health care, resulting in getting re-arrested a few years after release. According to a 2019 research conducted by the Prison Policy Institute, the average unemployment rate among formerly incarcerated people in the United States is 27 percent—5 percent higher than the average unemployment rate. This is due to the traditional view of companies to people with a criminal record as ‘unemployable’. Many assume that ex-prisoners will be unreliable, dishonest, and antisocial. As a result, most ex-prisoners are unable to find jobs and end up working menial jobs such as supermarket attendants, plumbers, or even morticians because of discrimination against them. Even some of them might have lost their professional licence during their sentences and need to work part-time in order to regain them upon release; some have also become de-skilled during their prison time, which keeps them from finding a job that suits their former qualifications. As stated by the Georgia State Pardons and Paroles, "prison punishes the offender but does not teach him or her how to get back into normal life."