|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
Is zero tolerance policing (strict and set responses to all crimes by police) a good way of reducing crime?
I'm going to admit it openly; I am very against Zero Tolerance. 1. Minor offenders, gang members, and the poor are extremely unlikely to be aware of the punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drugs) and therefore can be reduced only by structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labelling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. This leads to ‘deviance amplification’ where convicts increasingly commit more serious crimes as a result of their contact with law enforcement. 2. Arresting small-scale pushers (many of them addicts) and users is targeting the victims to stop the crime. As well as being unfair it is ineffective. As long as there is a demand there will be drug dealing and demand can only be stopped by rehabilitation. This does not occur in prison. It is in big drug syndicates (which we won’t have the resources to combat if everyone is patrolling) that drug dealing is associated with violence. 3. Prison sentences contribute to a far higher tendency to re-offend. It would be nice if they had a rehabilitative role but we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards so more likely to resort to crime. They meet established criminals in prison who both encourage the lifestyle and teach necessary skills for criminal behaviour. Prison often fosters resentment of the police and the courts and anyway the harassment of juveniles associated with zero tolerance already creates an extremely antagonistic relationship with the police. 4. In reality Zero Tolerance gives the police almost limitless power in poor communities. They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries marijuana cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers. 5. Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime and it occurs entirely independently of zero tolerance. For every city where the two have both been associated with a falling crime rate (New York) there is an area where regeneration has worked on its own to solve a crime problem (Hong Kong, Brixton in London). The most important element of urban regeneration is the way individuals come to take pride in their area. This is far more likely when it is not associated with police persecution, antagonism with the government and constant fear of arrest. No police presence is sufficient to properly defend a business which has not fostered good relations with the local community. 6. The enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it is almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. This reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching graffiti artists. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these are rarely reported. A patrolling officer might pass a burglary every 18 years and probably wouldn't notice it. With all due respect, I dont see how anyone can support Zero Tolerance after reading these 6 points.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
Ok you make some good points, but what law enforcement system do you suggest that's better? Humans are flawed, so our systems will always be inefficient, otherwise we would all be living in a big happy communist family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Player
|
Indeed, this is a good point about the minors not knowing... but alot of younger people will use that as an excuse for when their ass gets caught... zero tolerance is a good thing IMHO...
__________________
Nima Is God < Arch0wl is Here < I am Satan |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
MAЯISA
|
In my opinion, people need to stop being so rule-bound and statistics-conscious. Personally, I'd say that the law should be more like guidelines than actual rules. Granted, this can't be done in today's society; there's too much corruption, and people are ruled by the almighty dollar bill.
In effect, I can't say that I agree with you. Zero tolerance may be the best route to take in today's world. However, I don't disagree with you on the grounds that there is certainly room for change in the future.
__________________
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
|
In a sense, Zero Tolerance is more of a tool for inducing fear than it is legitimate punishment for crime. When someone hears that the crime they want to commit is unacceptable to the highest degree, a good percentage of those people will back out. But in return, when a policy such as Zero Tolerance is used, there must be an equally efficient punishment to the warning. An example can be used with the Death Penalty. Killing someone in several states will serve you this punishment, and when people that want to murder are aware of this penalty, they're discouraged to commit the crime. But when someone goes ahead and commits homicide, then the promise of the Penalty (in this case, death) must be as great as the promise of punishment (again, death). The deal here is fair from both standpoints, the criminal's and that of the victim's. The criminal had taken a life and theirs will be taken in return. The victim is getting justice and the criminal was aware of the ramifications of murder.
Even simple math can prove this is correct: Death = Death. But, with Zero Tolerance, the price for commiting the crime doesn't always keep in mind the offender's history, status, initiative, or age. As stated well in the introduction of this thread, Zero Tolerance is a hefty policy title, and like several other policies it isn't going to be fairly dealt with. The Death Penalty may sound fair on paper, but when a child picks up his uncle's handgun and brings it over to a friends house to show it off and ends up accidentally killing them, the rule written on paper won't cover how to deal with a kid pulling the trigger while showing his friend his uncle's gun. Hundreds of kids have been killed by capital punishment due to situations similar to the one mentioned. Picture a small tunnel through which animals of several structures are walking under. The walls of the tunnel are covered in electric barbed wire, and there's a rule in the tunnel; Don't jump. That's all well and good for the rabbit, a minor problem for the lion, but it's going to be a major problem for the elephant. The fox can jump around all it likes, the lion has to be cautious but can still be liberal, meanwhile the elephant has no room for error. Although the crimes set under Zero Tolerance may not give the offender the excuse of a mishap or an accident, the punishment of this policy turns a blind eye to the human side of crime and more importantly those who have committed them, and focuses more on trying to scare them into becoming law abiders. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
FFR Player
|
This policy can even go back to the harshness of Hammurabi's Code (an eye for an eye type deal.) There is a reason such a policy has survived so long (although it has been watered down with growing concern for human rights)- it works. Sure it's slightly inefficient, but there's no real way to fix that unless you can think of one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Banned
|
Quote:
Out of all the reasons, none of them appealed to me except for 3. That would be the only reason why I would pull zero tolerance. Reason 1, in my opinion, was all wrong. If a gang member is shooting up some ho he found in the apartment he broke into, he should have some feeling that doing that is wrong. Different story for homeless people, but same for minor offenders. Who cares if it was one Jolly Rancher? No one, but habits can develope. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Player
|
Actually I didn't make that name, if I did, I would have at least spelled it right. When I was registering for this site it of course asked for my email address, and when I entered it, it said an account already exists for that address. Because I didn't feel like creating a new email address just for this site, I said that I forgot my username and password. It gave that information to me, so I changed the password and used the name up till now and will probably use it for the rest of my posting time here. It's not like I stole the account, I mean the email was vacant and this account had 0 posts before I started.
Anyway, no one cares, lets stay on topic so the thread doesn't get locked. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
FFR Player
|
all i have more to say is that the zero tolerance is a good tool, yes it may be used just as a scare tactic... but nevertheless it is important to have
__________________
Nima Is God < Arch0wl is Here < I am Satan |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 72
|
In my opinion, to truly judge zero tollerance we should have to ask the opinion of someone effected by it, (a.k.a. a member of a minority or subject of poor stereotype) if you aren't one trillo, to understand fully of the methods at hand, and why they are so drastic(?). The cities are 'cracking-down' on these people being treated so poorly because of their backrounds and past references of criminal behavior. Zero tollerance must have been put into affect after crime levels had come to an all-time high, and the cities were worried they couldn't contain it any longer. Although there is a lot of injustice involved, you can't say it was created as a way to beat up on the poor, innocent gang members and drug dealers for making society worse. But, seeing as it doesn't effect me, (I get away with the offences I commit...) I can't really say my opinion matters much.
__________________
~Sam |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
I admit it, I have no real opinion regarding Zero tolerance. I was just trying to be controversial. The way I see it as of now, the arguments for zero tolerance are as follows:1. Zero Tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals. i) It creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. Research shows a direct link between this perceived chance of detection and crime rates. ii) Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. iii) Convicts are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. If a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced. Otherwise they will be held in contempt. 2. Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective at reducing small-scale drug use and dealing by patrolling and arresting. By cutting off the dealer on the ground we can best target the businesses of big suppliers. Big busts have a minimal effect. Drug use is a huge cause of further crime. Pushing creates no go areas where criminal acts flourish. Addiction creates a need for money that can usually only be solved by theft. 3. Zero tolerance also allows for a sound rehabilitative role. A custodial sentence, particularly for juveniles, takes them out of the atmosphere (often surrounded by drug use and living in poverty and or abusive homes) that encourage criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of all penal codes. Education and discipline are both vital to our prisons. The large number of police on the ground also allows for a supervisory role in the community after the prisoner is released to reduce reoffending. 4. Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common under zero tolerance. 5. Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug dealing and so returns parks and open spaces to the community. Unless businesses are protected from vandalism and petty crime it is usually uneconomic for them to return to the worst areas and they are vital to raising the standard of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return of public transport to deprived areas because it can be protected. 6. We can afford zero tolerance. Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of theft and vandalism per year is a significant chunk of GDP. Deterrence reduces the number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to empty them in time. The most important question is whether we believe it is worth spending a percentage of our tax dollars to guarantee our safety. Most electors in most countries say this is not just worthwhile but their spending priority. So...who disagrees/agrees and why?
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
|
Lol, I like the sudden change of opinion... almost seems sarcastic... anyway, take 1 and 4 of your first point of view and switch them out with your new view, and I'm with it 100%... the reason being is it sounds like my city then.
__________________
~F.F.~ |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|