Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of the state. People should be able to work, travel and go about their daily lives without fear of harassment, violence or crime. Meeting this responsibility requires effective law enforcement, but it also calls for policies that look beyond the immediate response to an offence and consider how crime can be prevented in the first place.
In May 2026, the DIG Operations Lahore introduced mandatory character certificates and police verification for delivery riders and certain other service providers following complaints of harassment and misconduct. The decision addresses a legitimate public-safety concern.
However, it also brings a broader question into focus: how can security measures protect the public while allowing individuals who have served their sentences to reintegrate into society? This balance between public protection and reintegration is the wider issue this article seeks to examine.
This question is particularly important in a society where criminal justice is often discussed primarily in terms of punishment. Holding individuals accountable for offences is essential. Punishment serves justice and can deter both individuals and others from committing crimes.
Yet, punishment alone cannot constitute a complete crime-prevention strategy. A system that focuses only on responding to offences, without examining how further offending can be prevented, risks leaving important gaps in public safety.
Preventing reoffending is one such concern. Individuals who have served their sentences or have otherwise been lawfully released do not all present the same level of risk. Their circumstances, the nature and seriousness of their previous offences, subsequent conduct and the likelihood of further offending may differ considerably. This does not mean that past conduct should be disregarded or that individuals should automatically be trusted. It means that decisions affecting their access to employment and other opportunities should be informed by relevant evidence rather than a blanket assumption that every person with a criminal record poses an equal threat.
The distinction also matters when considering police verification. An FIR is a record of an allegation, not proof of guilt. Criminal proceedings may end in acquittal, cancellation of an FIR or other legal outcomes, each with its own meaning. Yet, individuals can continue to face difficulties when outdated or incomplete police records appear in character certificates, even after a case has concluded in their favour.
Such records can affect their ability to secure employment and participate in ordinary social and economic life. A reliable verification system must therefore distinguish between pending allegations, concluded cases, convictions and sentences that have been completed. There should also be an accessible and timely process for correcting inaccurate records.
At the same time, the nature of the offence must remain relevant. A person previously convicted of a minor offence should not automatically be assessed in the same way as someone convicted of a serious or violent crime. The relevance of the offence to a particular occupation, its recency, frequency, the individual’s subsequent conduct and any continuing legal restrictions should all inform the assessment. For positions involving access to private homes, children or vulnerable people, stronger safeguards may be justified.
The objective should be to identify genuine risks without imposing unnecessary restrictions on individuals who do not present a relevant threat.
A preventive approach must also recognise that lawful reintegration is part of protecting society. Access to employment does not erase an offence, nor does it remove the need for accountability. However, unjustified exclusion from lawful livelihoods can compound the difficulties faced by people attempting to rebuild their lives and may increase the risk of further offending.
Structured reintegration, supported by appropriate supervision and access to opportunities, is therefore not simply a concession to former offenders. It is a practical public-safety measure.
Pakistan already has legal provisions for probation and parole, but their effective use and implementation require greater attention. These mechanisms can provide alternatives to unnecessary incarceration and support supervision outside prison where legally appropriate. Their effectiveness depends on proper assessment, trained personnel, monitoring and coordination with relevant services.
Vocational training, counselling and employment support can also contribute to reintegration, particularly when they are linked to an individual’s assessed needs and risks. Such measures should complement, not replace, proportionate punishment and lawful supervision.
Developing this approach requires a shift from reactive decision-making towards evidence-based policy. Public concern following an incident is understandable, and authorities must respond to genuine threats.
However, policies should not be shaped solely by immediate pressure or public outrage. Before introducing a measure, policymakers should assess the problem it seeks to address, the evidence supporting the proposed response, the resources required and the possible consequences for different groups. They should also establish how its effectiveness will be measured and when it will be reviewed.
This requires stronger research and evaluation within the criminal justice system. Crime patterns, technologies and methods of offending continue to change. Policies that address one form of misconduct may become ineffective as circumstances evolve, while poorly designed measures may create new problems. Regular analysis of crime trends, repeat offending, enforcement outcomes and the effects of policy interventions can help authorities identify what works and what needs revision.
Universities, criminologists, legal experts, statisticians and technology specialists can contribute to this process. International practices may offer useful guidance, but they must be adapted to Pakistan’s legal framework, institutional capacity and social realities.
Institutional capacity is equally important, and it begins with recruitment. Criminal justice institutions need personnel whose educational backgrounds, professional qualifications and competencies are relevant to the responsibilities they are expected to perform.
Recruitment should not be treated merely as filling vacant positions; it should be a process of identifying individuals with the analytical ability, integrity, sound judgement and professional aptitude required for specialised roles.
This is particularly important in areas such as criminal investigation, forensic analysis, intelligence, digital crime and policy development, where decisions require technical knowledge and careful assessment. Relevant academic backgrounds, including criminology, law, forensic science, psychology, data analysis and related disciplines, can strengthen institutional expertise. However, qualifications alone are not sufficient.
Continuous professional training, practical experience, performance assessment and accountability are equally necessary to ensure that personnel can respond to evolving forms of crime and carry out their responsibilities effectively.
Coordination between institutions must also improve. Police, prosecution, courts, prisons, probation services and relevant social welfare departments should be able to share appropriate information and work towards consistent objectives, while respecting privacy and legal safeguards. For example, planning for a prisoner’s lawful release should not end at the prison gate.
Where supervision is required, arrangements should be made in advance, with clear responsibilities and appropriate support. Without coordination, even well-designed policies can remain ineffective in practice.
The responsibility for public safety cannot be reduced to a single institution or intervention. Individuals remain accountable for their actions, while the state has a responsibility to enforce the law fairly, protect victims, prevent crime and ensure that justice mechanisms function effectively. A secure society requires all these responsibilities to be taken seriously.
Ultimately, the purpose of criminal justice should not be limited to punishing those who have committed offences. It must also protect those who may become victims, prevent further harm and ensure that enforcement measures are fair, proportionate and effective. Accountability and reintegration are not opposing ideas. When supported by sound evidence, professional capacity and consistent oversight, they can serve the same objective: a safer society in which justice is delivered and the risk of future crime is reduced.
We live in the 21st century, an age in which ideas and possibilities are abundant. What is often needed to turn them into reality is not another proposal or policy, but the willingness, commitment and resolve to act.
The writer is a public policy scholar.
aiman.zameer98@gmail.com
