# data[].attributes.body
Right realism:

Administrative:

Which is more effective?

# data[].attributes.body
Right realism:

Administrative:

Which is more effective?

# data[].attributes.body
Right realism:

Administrative:

Which is more effective?

# data[].attributes.body
Right: repeat offenders will get longer terms?

# data[].attributes.body
Right Realism approach against drug traffickers can be seen by the harsh sentencing threshold such as life sentences or death sentence. This is on par with conservative criminology on being tough on criminals. Meanwhile, consumers are also punished with heavier sentences such as the LT1/LT2 regime as well as canning. Based on these factors, it shows that that the Singapore government has zero tolerance against drug offenders.

Administrative criminology may not be as effective compared to conservative criminology as majority of drug offenders by nature tends to reoffend again. Much efforts has been emphasised on rehabilitation however the numbers did not show much improvement. We also cannot prevent people from taking drugs as despite multiple intervention by CNB to stop drugs coming in to Singapore. The root of the problem lies with the traffickers/pedallers.  Drug addiction itself is already a known pattern and it is not easy to prevent people from consuming.

# data[].attributes.body
The Right Realism Approach is seen through tough crackdown in drug offences (e.g. harsher punishments and sentencing). It might focus on the social conditioning around drug use, so forming a negative image on drug use and drug offenders could repel society's tolerance and acceptance of drug use.

Admin criminology approach might deal with opportunity structures to mitigate drug use and distribution. Initiatives might include availing social workers to help those in more criminogenic areas, or those with poorer socio-eco backgrounds. They might also formulate support structures for offenders like involving family members in the rehab progress of the offender, go through family counselling tgt etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Agree on Right Realism for drug offences. Capital punishment for traffickers as a strong deterrence.

# data[].attributes.body
Right realism for traffickers: rational choice theory, increased punishment, policing, and surveillance to create an environment where there is harsh punishment and high chance of getting caught.

Maybe less effective for consumers, e.g. rational choice theory  less applicable, as the reward may be overwhelming from a psychological/biological perspective for the consumer.

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative criminology – situational approach to influence offender motivation, e.g., drinking places to provide transport or drivers, conduct tests and inform drinkers of their blood alcohol levels before they leave, impose high fines & jail for offending

# data[].attributes.body
I think drink driving is rarely a "planned" event. Admin criminology will probably be more effective in the sense we prevent the cause of drink driving. "100% of drink driving is caused by drinking." We can charge exorbitant rates for parking near watering joints during typical happy hours to deter people from even driving to these places if they want to drink, hence increasing the likelihood they'll travel there and back via public transport. (Danis)

# data[].attributes.body
A combination of right realism and administrative criminology. Whether online or physical scams, such offences ought to be punished as victims often suffer financial losses which they cannot afford. Education to raise public awareness so that victims are more guarded when conducting physical or online transactions, and be allowed a time lapse as “cooling off period” to complete the process, that altogether would be seen as less attractive to offenders

# data[].attributes.body
Right Realism:
Ban from driving for x amount years depending on how many times you get caught, Stricter alcohol% limit before punishments kick in

Administrative:
Cars to require alcohol detection sensor, additional checkpoints near areas with large clusters of pubs, patrols near high density carparks to deter drunk drivers, increase public transport availability past midnight to encourage public transport use home, encourage bars and pubs to promote drinkers to take cabs or private hire services home, include small punishments for passengers like fines to get them to encourage drivers who've drunk to not drive, decrease the number of parking lots near drinking areas to force people to not be able to drive and park at the hotspots

Which is more effective?
Administrative might be more effective as once a driver is under the influence of alcohol, they might not be in full control of their faculties. Making it easier to travel home after drinking will make driving home while under the influence less attractive.  (peng kwan)

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative. Police can study the patterns of high risk areas and conduct road blocks around the vicinity of these areas. The punishment is tiered at different level - accident causing death as the most serious or caught during the road block by Police. Heavier sentences for reoffenders such as revoked licenses.

# data[].attributes.body
Right Realism:
Impose harsher punishments such as suspending licenses, fines. Could implement a probation period for offenders after punishment has been delivered. But if caught drink driving again, take away license for good. Harsher punishments for first-time offenders like more demerit points.

Administrative:
Have police surveillance or patrol nightlife areas. Implement breathalyzer tests near carparks of nightlife areas where alcohol is prominent. Impose stricter monitoring of bars and pubs, like putting up posters to remind customers the damage of drink driving.

# data[].attributes.body
Right realism: you know you want to drink then why you drive? so harsher punishment needed as you can made the choice.

Administrative: Statistic shows people drink more on festive says so increase poster and ads to prevent drink driving

Which is more effective? I feel like both is needed.

# data[].attributes.body
If we consider the transnational nature of most scams, right realism will be difficult due to the limits of our judicial reach. Baseline punishments will still be necessary as basic deterrence for in country incidents, but admin criminology will be the most effective method, such as education to raise awareness about scams and reduce "opportunities" for perpetrators (routine activity theory). Also messaging at ATMs, and training for bank tellers, staff of third party financial services to spot red flags. (Danis)

# data[].attributes.body
Conservative
The scam situation is currently getting out of control and millions are loss everyday. Although the masterminds are operating overseas, we are seeing offenders using/opening personal bank accounts and sell it to unknown 3rd parties as a form of commodity as they receive monetary gain. Scammers are exploiting these relinquished bank accounts to be used as ‘underground’ financial system. It is time for the authorities to take a deterrence approached (conservative criminology) against these offenders and used Cheating offences and Corruption and Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (CDSA) against them as a deterrence for potential offenders.

# data[].attributes.body
Right Realism:
Tougher crackdowns on syndicates and transnational scam orgs. Work with foreign authorities. Make them return the money they stole to victims via compensation.

Administrative:
Educate public not to fall for scams, pre-emp vulnerable target groups like elderlies, focus more on educating them not to fall for scams. Provide incentives like lighter punishments if scammers rat out their bosses.

# data[].attributes.headline
Based on Singapore context i feel people will always take every opportunity that is presented to them. Realism approach would have been more effective. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Based on Singapore context i feel people will always take every opportunity that is presented to them. Realism approach would have been more effective. 

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative approach would also be effective for those who reoffend. I would suggest banning those having problem or have addiction to alcohol from holding any license for a period of time till they are totally clean.

# data[].attributes.body
Right realism:
Possibly harsher punishments for money mules, harsher punishments on people who provide the tools needed for scam syndicates to operation (e.g bank accounts, mobile phone numbers)

Administrative:
Education programmes to prevent both locals and foreigners from falling for scams, better detection methods to prevent scam messages from being received by victims in the first place, better enforcement by platforms like carousell/lazada to prevent scam postings to be listed in the first place such as preventing new users from posting high value items for sale (e.g recent rolex watch scam), better collaboration with international partners where scam crime syndicates are based to crack down on them via information sharing schemes, include cooldown periods after a user change their transfer limit to prevent syndicates from being able to quickly withdraw money from a victim's account

Which is more effective?
As most scam syndicates are international, additional penalties on scam mules are not tackling the root of the problem and providers of mobile numbers and bank accounts might be victims of scam as well. Administrative criminology might be the better option to prevent scams from occurring in the first place (peng kwan)

# data[].attributes.body
Right realism approach seems to be ineffective in combating scams. Hard to track scammers as they are always hiding behind false identity. Knowing that they can get away with it, it will not deter them from commiting it.

Creating public awareness would have been a better option to prevent public from falling vicitm to scams.

# data[].attributes.body
Blocking of unknown/unsaved numbers from making calls or sending messages would also be an effective way to prevent scammers from occurring.