I’ve decided to post this here rather than GQ because I’m fairly certain where it will go.
OK, so I’m a non-US poster. We get a fair bit of coverage about the zero-tolerance law enforcement in the US. Most of it suggests that it’s the answer to all of societies ills. In those areas where it is practiced crime is apparently down to the lowest level since man descended from the trees.
I’m a bit of a cynic personally. I’m a big beliver in the adage that if it seem too good to be true, it probably is.
And just occasionally there are glimpses of he downside. People jailed for stealing pizza, overcrowded jails etc.
So, what’s the straight dope. Does zero-tolerance policy work? What are the pros and cons? Are there any hard data out there to support the practice?
Zero tolerance is not associated to all crime. Nor would it be accepted. Usually, in all the areas I have been in, zero tolerance usually concerns drunk driving.
I don’t have any hard data, but in my experience it works. If I thaught I could talk my way out of a ticket, I would be more inclined not to call a cab and drive myself home from a bar. Howevwe, knowing I have almost no chance to avoid a DUI/DWI if I am pulld over, that is not a risk I woul take.
Zero tolerance does not mean savage penalties for minor crimes. It means tackling all crime, however small. Thus a zero-tolerance regime does not ignore (say) graffiti on the grounds that it is less serious than (say) mugging. Both are followed up.
This usually means a greater financial commitment to policing and, in time, to courts, prisons, the probation service, etc, and most of the additional resources are directed at dealing with (relatively) minor matters. The theory is that, in time, a climate which is less tolerant of crime and more appreciative of the advantages of order and community will develop, and this should lead to a fall-off in crime generally.
As Saen, it can be focussed. We can have zero tolerance for motoring offences, or zero tolerance for street crime. But a policy of zero-tolerance for (say) motoring offences isn’t necessarily associated with tougher penalties for those offenses. It means increased detection, prosecution and enforcement.
I think of it in terms of schools
Many schools have “zero tolerance” policies that lead students to suspensions which may be unneccesary (ie: with a little explanation, the kid may get off and not miss school for 10 days or whatever).
I think it’s a great idea for speeding tickets (I NEVER speed in texas), because those are clear and objective. Anything that could be subjective I think should still allow for a debate.
Zero tolerence = zero thought. This policy while logical on the surface has been taken to stupid extremes. When it comes to fighting at school both kids get suspended. Even if my honor roll student was fending off your glue sniffing psycho gang member troll. Zero tolerence for fighting. This is blatently stupid but it protects the school from law suits. Discrimination and all. Oh and no Altoids. Why you may ask? It looks like drugs and they have zero tolerence. And don’t even think about putting asprin in your back pack because that is drugs and they have zero tolerence. I could go on all day but I won’t. This is just another example of how what seems like a good idea has spun over into the realm of absurd.
Trob’s got it right. Zero Tolerance means making punishment not-fit the crime.
:The Gateway Theory: Think matchbooks are a gateway to flamethrowers. Imagine you had to have a waiting period and pass a background check and tell a policeman why you want a kitchen knife.
:Cruelty to Animals: I think kids who do this are unconsciously trying to be a hunter or a farmer or a butcher. When I was little we siblings enjoyed popping woodticks on a gas stove. Same as wingless flies, I believe.
:Perversity: you can chop a chicken’s head off, but you can’t have sex with (the chicken).
There was an interesting article a few weeks ago about the zero-tolerance policy against domestic violence that we have in Ontario. Unfortunately it’s not available online any more so I can’t cite it directly.
It basically outlined this situation:
Couple gets in a fight, police are called. Police are required to arrest protagonist (usually the man), put him in jail, prevent him seeing his wife/kids etc. What this can mean is that the woman is suddenly without a partner and there’s not a thing she can do about it. This is fine if he is, indeed, an abusive asshole who has intimidated his partner so that she is afraid to speak up for herself. But if she is not intimidated, if it was only a minor fight (she may have called the cops because she was frightened at the time, but not living in an abusive relationship) or something, she has still lost her partner. The law assumes that if a woman calls the cops, she is not interested in pursuing a relationship with her partner, and that treating him like a criminal is the only way to deal with this family situation. The article reported that it is extremely costly, financially, emotionally, and time-wise, to get these restraining orders lifted and charges dropped, if this is desired.
Basically this law puts women in a position of having only two choices: their partner taken away if she calls the cops, or not calling the cops and keeping him. No middle ground. She is treated first and foremost as a victim who cannot speak for herself, or at least, is not to be trusted if she does. Situations where she is frightened of him, or he is acting violently but out of character, but she still loves him and wants to continue living with him, are irrelevant.
I understand why this law is in place (the cops got frustrated when they tried to press charges for domestic abuse, and the woman refused to testify, so they had to drop charges). However, this way is like (as I remember the article saying) ‘trying to do neurosugery with a sledgehammer.’ These people need marriage counsellors, not cops, not prison.