Crime is emerging as one of the major issues in the General Election.

That may seem strange, given that Police statistics show violent crime on the decline.

But it is clear that people feel less secure in their homes and on the streets, and that the severity of violent crime seems to be worsening even if the number of reported incidents is falling.

While Bermuda has had murders and serious assaults since 1609, the recent point blank shooting of Shaundae Jones in Dockyard and crimes in which young people and visitors are pulled off their bikes or dragged along the street by purse snatchers causes fear and concern about public safety.

Coupled with the collapse of a number of high profile trials in recent years, there is a perception that Bermuda is more dangerous place than many people remember.

That does not mean that there are easy solutions to the problem.

There is no question that drugs are the cause of many crimes, from house-breakings to serious crimes of violence and turf wars. It is also clear that lack of clear direction for young people in the home contributes to a reckless attitude and approach to life.

And the unquestioned presence of firearms in the community means that when attacks do occur, the consequences are more likely to be serious, if not fatal.

Simple answers, from "put more Police on the street" to "bring back capital punishment" cannot solve the problem. By the same token, "he/she came from a broken home" and other justifications for serious offenders do nothing to protect the public.

On drugs, both parties support the principle of the Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) scheme, which had its early germination under the United Bermuda Party and was rightly expanded and implemented under the Progressive Labour Party.

However, the UBP is right when it says in today's newspaper that inadequate resources were committed to ATI when it was implemented, both in terms of diagnosis and having enough rehabilitation centres in place.

While Government cannot he held solely responsible for the uncertainties surrounding rehab centres like His House, Fair Havens and Camp Spirit, the fact is that the turmoil surrounding these key elements in the ATI strategy has damaged the overall scheme.

On drug interdiction, both parties are again in step, arguing that drugs must be stopped at the Airport and docks.

The UBP also suggests that drug importers be able to drop drugs into bins before passing through Customs and Immigration at which point foreign nationals would be immediately deported rather than imprisoned.

The UBP has also stated it would delay or cancel capital projects in order to fund crime fighting and wants longer sentences for serious crimes and repeat offenders.

It also called for more Police to be put on the street to deter criminals.

Home Affairs Minister Terry Lister disagrees with the latter point, arguing that better crime intelligence is a more effective way of preventing and detecting crime than having more Police on the beat. And he has also defended the Police's community beat officers scheme which has recently been introduced.

Mr. Lister also said the PLP would keep grappling with the social problems that are at the root of crime, although he would also like to see minimum sentences of nine months for many offenders to give the Corrections Department time to rehabilitate offenders, However, he disagrees with longer sentences generally.

"We don't need longer sentences. We need sentences that ensure we can get corrective behaviour in place," he said.

So, if it can be argued that the UBP's focus tends to be sharper on deterrence and punishment (a more visible Police presence and longer sentences) while the PLP's is on prevention and rehabilitation.

But the public seems to want both; a short term crackdown on criminals and a long term solution to crime.

The UBP has pledged to put more resources into fighting crime and into drug rehabilitation. What the public needs from both parties is some real detail on how much more should be spent and where it should go.