Zero tolerance

[edit] Americola's celebrity biographies are provided by AmericolaWiki, a celebrity wiki. You can help contribute to Americola and edit this article.

Criminology and Penology
Schools
Chicago School · Classical School
Conflict Criminology
Environmental Criminology
Feminist School · Frankfurt School
Integrative Criminology
Italian School · Left Realism
Marxist Criminology
Neo-Classical School
Positivist School
Postmodernist School
Right Realism
Criminal justice portal
See also Wikibooks:Social Deviance
This box: view • talk • edit

Zero tolerance is a term used to describe a non-discretionary enforcement policy for the criminal law or informal rules. Under a system of zero tolerance, persons in positions of authority – who might otherwise exercise their discretion in making subjective judgments regarding the severity of a given offense – are instead compelled to act in particular ways and, where relevant, to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability or "extenuating circumstances".

The term is also used in the context of driving under the influence of alcohol, referring to a lower illegal blood alcohol content for drivers under the age of 21. In the U.S., the legal limit in all states is now .08%, but for drivers under 21 the prohibited level in most states is .01% or .02%.

Zero tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in formal and informal policing systems around the world. The policies also appear in informal situations where there may be sexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments.

Contents 1 Theoretical considerations 2 Law enforcement in the United States 3 Effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy 4 See also 5 References 6 External links

Theoretical considerations

The conceptual rationale for zero tolerance emerges from a reaction against classical utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham had argued that penalties should be graduated so that the degree of pain threatened by the penal system would act as a deterrent by matching or exceeding the gain that might be derived from the proposed crime. At the time, capital punishment was a normative penalty. This had arisen because legislators were frustrated that less severe penalties did not seem to deter criminal behaviour. Penalties were therefore raised incrementally until even relatively minor thefts were punishable by death. Bentham argued that a combination of additional resources to improve policing and a scaled reduction in penalties would achieve better results.

In modern times, sentencing has become politicised as the Neo-Classical School and Right Realism have argued for a reduction in the discretion allowed to courts to adopt a just deserts approach. Rather, the judges should be constrained to impose more severe penalties in a more mechanical system which pays less regard to the question of individualised justice. The intention is to use the sentence imposed on every convicted person as a warning to others (see Rational Choice Theory). The news media give maximum coverage to "crime" and the "policies" for its control (see moral panic), and victimology has been included in the general political pressure for law enforcement agencies and the courts to take a firmer line. In parallel, criminologists and government advisors such as James Q. Wilson (see quality of life and Fixing Broken Windows) claim that by changing the physical environment and reducing opportunities to offend, there can be crime prevention through environmental design as a part of Environmental Criminology. An alternative set of strategies is offered by Left Realism.

Law enforcement in the United States

The terminology is most commonly used to describe the allocation of additional resources to combat identified crimes in particular geographical locations or for particular purposes. Hence, extra police patrols are deployed in known hot spots where prostitution and drug dealing are problems for local residents, specialized police units monitor the behavior of repeat offenders on the streets, and on-scene arrests in incidents of domestic violence are all claimed to be effective in reducing crime. According to Sherman (1997), those that do not work include: neighborhood watch programs organized with police; arrests of juveniles for minor offenses; arrests of unemployed suspects for domestic assault; increased arrests or raids on drug market locations; storefront police offices in high crime locations; and police newsletters with local crime information. Those that appear promising, defined by the authors as "programs for which the level of certainty is too low to make firm conclusions, but for which based on the limited evidence there is some reason to expect some successful reduction in crime," include: proactive drunk driving arrests with breath testing may reduce accident deaths; community policing with meetings to set priorities may reduce perceptions of crime; police showing greater respect to arrested offenders may reduce repeat offending; polite field interrogations of suspicious persons may reduce street crime; making arrest warrants to domestic violence suspects who leave the scene before police arrive may reduce domestic violence; higher number of police officers in cities may reduce crime; and gang monitoring by community workers and probation and police officers may reduce gang violence. Note that friendly or cordial policing appears to be effective at reducing recidivism risks for some serious crimes.

"Zero tolerance" policing violates the Law Enforcement Code of Conduct passed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which says in part: "The fundamental duties of a police officer include serving the community, safeguarding lives and property, protecting the innocent, keeping the peace and ensuring the rights of all to liberty, equality and justice" (cited in Robinson, 2002). This code requires that police behave in a courteous and fair manner, that they treat all citizens in a respectable and decent manner, and that they never use unnecessary force. As Robinson (2002: 206) explains:

Zero tolerance policing runs counter to community policing and logical crime prevention efforts. To whatever degree street sweeps are viewed by citizens as brutal, suspect, militaristic, or the biased efforts of 'outsiders,' citizens will be discouraged from taking active roles in community building activities and crime prevention initiatives in conjunction with the police. Perhaps this is why the communities that most need neighborhood watch programs are least likely to be populated by residents who take active roles in them.

It has been argued that zero tolerance policing will fail because its practice is alleged to destroy several important requisites for successful community policing: namely police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation (Cox and Wade 1998: 106).

Effectiveness of the zero tolerance policy

While correlation between zero tolerance measures and lower crime rates may exist, it is harder to prove causation. As an example, a decreasing crime rate in New York City in the early 1990s is sometimes touted as an effect of the zero tolerance policies enacted at that time. Others argue that the lowered crime rates actually started in 1991 and 1992 - before zero tolerance was enacted. In their book Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores The Hidden Side of Everything, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner go back further and correlate this decrease in crime with the legalisation of abortion in 1973. They point out that potential criminals, the result (they say) of unwanted children being reared in a hostile environment by parents who didn't want them, were instead simply not born. To support this claim, they point out that the decrease in crime rates was occurring nationally, not only in New York City.

See also

• Bob Kiley
• Crime mapping
• Ray Mallon

References

• Cox, S. & J. Wade. (1998). The Criminal Justice Network: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Robinson, M. (2002). Justice Blind? Ideals and Realities of American Criminal Justice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Sherman, L., D.; Gottfredson, D; MacKenzie, J; Eck, P; Reuter & Bushway, S. (1997). "Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising." [1]
• Snider, Laureen. (2004) "Zero Tolerance Reversed: Constituting the Non-Culpable Subject in Walkerton" in What is a Crime? Defining Criminal Conduct in Contemporary Canadian Society. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, and Montreal: Laval University Press (French translation), 2004: 155-84.

Wikipedia information about Zero tolerance This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Zero tolerance". It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer). Help contribute to Americola and edit this article.