The government, therefore, has a duty to protect its citizens from such crimes.
The issue of crime is a national pandemic and cannot be overlooked. Therefore, the government creates an agenda to discuss it and find lasting solutions. There is the agenda of homicide and cyber-crime. Both have been robbing the country of either prominent people or lots of money.
The policy formulation will include hefty penalties for anyone charged with a cyber-crime or a homicide. Actually, for a homicide, individuals could also receive a death sentence. For a cyber-crime, the individual will be required to pay up every cent to the last coin. The police on patrol will also increase and surveillances will be put in areas strategic, so as to identify the people carrying out different types of crimes.
The policy evaluation will eventually be done to see how the two active policies are. The "government will then evaluate the facts on the ground and try to seal the loopholes" (Öberg, Lundin and Thelander, 114). Thus, the system becomes more efficient.
There are several needs that arise, and that require to be brought to the attention of the policymakers for them to review and make decisions. Crime is one such issue. One of the typical examples of crime is larceny and any such theft like robbery with violence and burglary. From the offense perspective, Plott states that "a rise in the practice of theft in a particular state may raise the alarm for the government to act on it" (25). It therefore, becomes an agenda in their list.
There are different ways that to table this in parliament. The government may decide to look at the causes of the rise in such theft cases. What age is mostly involved in these acts? Why? Is it that the employment rate is high? The government then decides to focus on the "whys" to find a lasting solution.
They then brainstorm on the possible causes. They are then able to draft a plan from their finding. For example, the paper