Zero Tolerance
Zero Tolerance Policies
The idea of zero tolerance as applied in dealing with crime was first expressed in the 1970s when the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act was enacted in New Jersey. Zero tolerance inherited the principles of the act. In 1982, Wilson and Kelling expounded the ideas and the principle behind zero tolerance in their article Broken Windows which appeared in the Atlantic monthly. Although the article was not published in a peer reviewed journal of criminology, the article had a lot of impact. The term zero tolerance was however used ten years later.
Wilson and Kelling suggested that the zero tolerance policies if implemented will give the law enforcers a tool for repression of minor crimes. They argued that zero tolerance will effectively deal with homeless individuals and deter crimes that are associated with homeless people. They gave an example of a broken window in a building. If no one cares about repairing or replacing the broken window, there is a likelihood of vandal breaking another window. If no action is taken, they are likely to break into the house and may light a fire in there if it is unoccupied. They use the same to explain the accumulation of litter in the side walk which may get worse as time goes if no action is taken (Wilson Kelling, 1982).
Zero tolerance has received a lot of criticism from a number of criminologists. One of the criticisms is based on the assumption that criminals are poor. This assumption led to the redefining of the problems facing the society such as poverty in terms of national security. This approach reduces crime in the streets and more so those committed by the ordinary members of the society. This approach has been considered ineffective in dealing with organized crimes as well as white collar crimes. Criminologists opposed to zero tolerance have argued that there is not evidence that the policies lead to reduction in crime rates. However, advocates of the policies have claimed that the policies have had a large impact in the reduction of crime. Despite these criticisms, zero tolerance has proved to be effective in dealing with deviant behaviors in several applications (Holmes, 2005).
Zero tolerant policies have proved effective in dealing with undesirable behaviors in several workplaces. Some of the institutions that have effectively employed zero tolerance policies include the law enforcement agencies and military, schools and other places of work. The absence of harassment and bullying in these places of work can be attributed to the adoption of zero tolerance policies against such behaviors (Holmes, 2005). The policies are used by administrators in many organizations and government agencies to underscore the organizations commitment in protecting individuals from harassment. However, the use of such policies has been opposed by some people because zero tolerance policies are subject to errors of omission and commission (Snider, 2004).
Application of zero tolerance in organization has also been accused of promoting ruthless management of the human resources in the organization. There are cases where workers have feared the reaction of the administration on their fellow workers which makes them less willing to report undesirable behaviors to the authority. Workers have feared that if they report their fellow workers, they may be fired without considering the circumstances which made the worker to commit the offense. Zero tolerance have resulted in the perception that too much is likely to be done incase the worker is caught on the wrong side by the management. The ruthlessness of the management as a result of the zero tolerance policies in dealing with deviant workers affects the performance of the workers negatively (American Bar Association, 2004).
The United States has adopted a zero tolerance policy on the war against drugs. The laws against drugs enacted in the second half of the 20th century by President Reagan and President Bush apply the zero tolerance principles against the entry of drugs into the United States. The laws were initially meant to deter the transfer of drugs across the border. However, the law enforcement agencies have shifted their focus to the users applying the zero tolerance laws on those who are caught in possession of the drugs with the assumption that the punitive sentences on the users will cut off the demand for the drug and consequently solve the drugs problem in the society. There were no additional laws required to implement the no tolerance policies, rather the existing laws were to be strictly followed by the law enforcers and the criminal justice systems without leniency. Other countries such as Sweden, Russia, India and Italy have effected similar policies in their war against drugs (Lindstrom, 2006).
Zero tolerance policies have been considered more consistence due to its dichotomy of the use and non use of illegal drugs. The policies have equated all illegal drugs related crimes which are considered undesirable in the society. This is in contrast to the viewpoint of many people who maintains that the law should consider how harmful the drug is to the society. Zero tolerance laws do not consider whether the individual is a drug addict or an occasional user. Those opposed to zero tolerance policies application in dealing with drug abuse argue that the penalties should be more lenient to give room for the rehabilitation of the drug users (Lindstrom, 2006).
However, though the criminal justice system should consider the welfare of the drug users and aim at helping the individual to shed of the bad habit, it is important to remove drug users from the society as a means of deterring them. The official goal of any laws against illegal drugs use is to have a drug free society. This has been seen as the reason for the significant reduction of drug use in Sweden over the years. The government of Sweden focused its zero tolerance against drug use to the users rather than the distributors of the drugs. The government stopped giving judicial waivers to offenders accused with possession of drugs which were meant for personal use. In the late 1980s, the use of drugs that were not medically prescribed were made illegal and in some years later, the law enforcers were allowed to take urine and blood samples from suspected drug users. This zero tolerance approach has been endorsed by international organizations against illegal drug use such as the UNODC. The use of zero tolerance policies in Sweden has been rated as the main reason for the low prevalence of illegal drugs among its population though the interpretation of the data in Sweden has attracted some controversy (Tham, 1998).
In many countries around the world including the United States, zero tolerance policies have been used to deter driving when drunk. In the United States, 0.08 of alcohol is the legal limit for driver over the age of twenty one years. In Europe, countries such as Sweden, Germany and France use zero tolerance policies against driving under the influence of drugs. The classification of drugs that are covered by the zero tolerance to drinking and driving vary from country to country with some countries outlawing all drugs that are not prescribed by a doctor while others restrict alcohol only (Lindstrom, 2006).
The zero tolerance policies have also been effectively used in schools and colleges to deter behaviors that are not desirable among the students. The policies have been adopted by majority of the schools and colleges in North America. The main aim of the policy is to deal with the increased cases of drug abuse and violent behaviors among the children. There are cases of children or students bullying or harassing each other at school. Although there are juvenile judicial systems that are meant to deal with such situations, the need for less lenient penalties at school have been created to deter students from engaging in unlawful activities (Casella, 2003).
Zero tolerance policies in schools are concerned with the use or procession of dangerous weapons or drugs by the students, teachers, parents, workers or anybody within the vicinity of the school compound. Possession or use of drugs and weapons within the school compound will always attract an automatic penalty without the need to find out under what circumstance did the offender posses or use the item. The school administrators are deterred from reducing the penalty based on their judgment of the prevailing conditions or the severity of the offence. Due to the inflexibility of the zero tolerance laws in schools and colleges, they have been ridiculed as zero intelligence policies by some administrators and students (Noguera, 1995).
There have been a good number of educationists supporting the application of zero tolerance policies in the American schools. There are claims that the laws will create an environment that is appropriate for learning and growth of the students. The proponents of these policies have pointed out several incidences of school breakdown as a result of the authority carelessly handling indiscipline cases which has resulted in disorderliness in schools. Zero tolerance policies will eliminate such cases where the authority is likely to be lenient on serious indiscipline cases which may affect the school negatively. The supporters have also argued in favor of the increased publicity of the policies among the student arguing that the fear created is essential in deterring students from involving themselves from activities such as drug abuse and violence while in school (Casella, 2003).
The main assumption in the application of zero tolerance policies in organizations, schools and government agencies is that making the law inflexible will deter the potential criminal. This is because the criminal knows that no matter the reason or the circumstances under which the crime is committed a penalty will be imposed against him or her. This has been seen as an effective method of behavior modification where those who at a risk of committing such crimes are aware that the law may be unfair to them. This will induce the individual to take unreasonable measures to avoid committing such crimes. This is the basic principle behind laws all over the world. The laws should be such that the cost of committing the crime is high for individuals to use all possible means to avoid being caught on the wrong side of the law. This law applies in minor traffic offences to violent offences that risk the lives of other people. Zero tolerance policies have been proposed as the only policies that can be used to end the vice of corruption in the society. The argument in this case is based on the fact that if the judgment of corrupt individual is not subjective, less people will be encouraged to give or take bribes (Holmes, 2005).
Despite the adoption of zero tolerance policies by almost all schools in the United States, there is not enough evidence to support it effectiveness in the reduction of drug abuse among the students in American schools. The problem of drug abuse has persistently been a major problem facing American students. The students continue to meddle in illegal drugs and alcohol despite the strict zero tolerance laws. The negative effects of the unintended consequence of these policies are evident in almost all schools in the United States. The high number of suspensions as a direct consequence of these policies has had negative impacts on the student as well as the schools. To some extent, the policies are neutral but there are cases of zero tolerance policies being applied discriminatively against minority children. Some schools have also been embarrassed by the policies in the eyes of the public (Casella, 2003).
Different groups have come out round in the opposition of the application of zero tolerance policies in schools. The courts in the United States as well as the United States Department of Education have struck down the zero tolerance policies in schools. Critics of the policies have argued that there are many cases where students have been subjected to very severe punishment as a direct impact of the zero tolerance policies. The basic argument in this case is that the American schools are turning into jails as a result of zero tolerance policies. For example, why should a student be expelled because of possessing a fingernail clippers in the school compound because the school has adopted a zero tolerance policies against possession of weapon The direct negative impact of the laws is that the students are unlikely to report their fellow students to the administration because of the fear that the authority will be unfair to the student. This way, the policies promote delinquency in schools rather than instilling discipline (Rowe Bendersky, 2002).
The application of zero tolerance policies in the law enforcement have been accused of violating the international principles of policing. The policies are against the law enforcement code of conduct which stipulates international standards and ethics of law enforcers. The codes of conduct which was developed by senor police chiefs from different parts of the world specifies the basic duties of law enforcement officer as serving the society, protection of the innocent, protecting life and properties and ensuring that there is peace in the community. It is also the duty of the officers to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected and the principles of justice and equality are maintained. According to this international code of conduct, the law enforcers are expected to be courteous and fair when dealing with the offenders. They are expected to respect the citizens and treat them decently whether they have been suspected of criminal acts or not. Zero tolerance policies are against these basic codes of conducts of law enforcement. The policies discourage the involvement of members of the society in crime prevention. The citizens view the zero tolerance approach to crime prevention as brutal and militaristic. This discourages their active involvement in the programs to reduce the targeted crime. Zero tolerance laws have a tendency of destroying the good working relationship between the law enforcers and the general public. The involvement of the public in a crime prevention initiative is important for the success of such programs (Lindstrom, 2006).
The ineffectiveness of the zero tolerance policies is simply because the approach is against the basic principles which are necessary for the success of community policing. These requisites include accountability of the law enforcement officers, openness of the society on information related to crime and the ability of the society to cooperate with the law enforcement agencies. Zero tolerance laws do not give room for these important requisites (Robinson, 2002).
The policies neglect the basic practice in criminal justice, the investigation of each case. It is wrong to treat all the cases the same without proper investigations. This always leads to unfair and unreasonable punishments being imposed on the offender. It is the role of the criminal justice system to ensure that the suspects are treated fairly. The little or no discretion given to the criminal justice system and the law enforcement agencies by the zero tolerance policies is a major weakness of the policies. The offenders are also likely to be involved in extreme crimes because they know the intensity of the penalty will not be determined by the gravity of the offence (Robinson, 2002).
Conclusion
Zero tolerance policies are policies that are put in place by the government, cooperate organizations, or schools to curb undesirable behaviors. The policies requires that a mandatory penalty be imposed to offenders accused of certain offences without considering the circumstances under which the offence is committed. The policies have been used effectively in dealing with drug abuse, violence and harassment in workplaces, in the security agencies and schools. Though the policies are aimed at deterring individuals from committing such crimes, their applications have received a lot of criticism.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment