Zero tolerance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since December 2007 | Articles needing additional references from December 2007 | Criminology | Criminal law
|
For other uses, see Zero tolerance (disambiguation).
Zero tolerance is the concept of giving carte blanche to the police for the inflexible repression of minor offences, homeless people and the disorders associated with them.[1][2][3] 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".[citation needed] Zero tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in formal and informal policing systems around the world.[citation needed] The policies also appear in informal situations where there may be sexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments.[citation needed]
History and etymologyThe concept of "Zero Tolerance" (1994)[4][5] originates in the 'broken window' theory of crime (1982), of which inherits the same underlying assumptions,[1][2][6] and which in turn was inspired by the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act, approved in New Jersey in 1973.[7][6] In 1982, conservatives James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, formulated their theory in the article Broken Windows,[7] published in The Atlantic Monthly. The Atlantic Monthly was not a scientific journal of criminology, which would have applied peer review, but instead a cultural weekly of large circulation. The title of the article comes from the following example:
Zero tolerance is the concept of giving carte blanche to the police for the inflexible repression of minor offences, homeless people and the disorders associated with them.[1][2][3] A well known criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security, [8] it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only "street crimes", those committed by lower social classes, excluding white-collar crimes.[9] On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn't play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates.[9] In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudolf Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him.[10][9] In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani's one, but it faced a crime increase instead.[9] Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Administration of Justice Professor at George Mason University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that "neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offences."[9][11] The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.[12][9] Since the 1973 original program had a positive impact on the citizens, which had a fictitious impression of safety improvement, the program has then been described a public relation policy instead of a safety one.[6] 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. Areas of applicationThe 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.[citation needed] 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 and narcoticsZero tolerance for use of narcotics is an official goal in Sweden[13] inspired by the Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist, Nils Bejerot. In the 1960s the use of amphetamines and cannabis was increasing despite a very low unemployment. When the Swedish "legal prescription experiment" was initiated in the spring of 1965, Bejerot started the "Injection Mark Study" at the Remand Prison to monitor the spread of intravenous drug abuse in Stockholm. Bejerot was a leading critic of the Swedish drug control system, using epidemiological principles to argue for comprehensive measures to prevent, detect and stop drug abuse. According to Bejerot young new users of a drug, who have not yet been damaged by the consumption of the drug, are important ambassadors for drug abuse. It is therefore very important to identify and treat the new carriers of the habit, which means zero tolerance for use.[14]A drug test by the police is seen as a cogent proof of consumption,[15] The punishment for a single small drug use is normally an arrest for a drug test at the nearest police station and a fine but it shall normally also include participation in some kind more or less mandatory treatment program (in case of repeated use) or some other type of follow-up by local authorities. Punishment for driving a car affected by drugs is a lost driving license and one month or more in prison. Maximum for use is 6 months in prison. Punishment for sale of narcotics is prison from 6 months to 10 years and in extreme cases 14 years. There is no tolerance for smaller amounts of illegal drugs for personal use. Zero is zero. Sweden has no three-strikes law and very few prisoners compared with United States, about 1 citizen of 1400 compared to 1 in 100. About 50% of the prisoners are active users of illegal drugs before the time in prison. Many prisons have internal drug treatment programs for prisoners, often inspired by cognitive behavioral therapy. The anti drug program also includes information and free treatment for any person with addiction to drugs. In practice zero tolerance policy has been a success (in the sense of lowering drug use).[16] Drug use levels among students are lower than in the early 1970s. Life-time prevalence and regular drug use among students and among the general population are considerably lower than in the rest of Europe and lower than in United States. In addition, bucking the general trend in Europe, drug abuse has actually declined in Sweden over the last five years. A weak link has been that the municipalities pays for the for treatment and follow-up of drug abusers if they are not in a prison. The municipalities had financial problems and the unemployment grow for a period in the 1990s. UNODC made a special report about Sweden's drug policy in 2007. Another thing is that the membership in Schengen and EU reduced the supervision of illegal drug import from other countries at the borders. The ambitions to implement zero tolerance and follow-up of abusers has varied over the years but the present trend seems to be to apply zero tolerance for illegal drugs more consistently. The change of government in Sweden 2006 did not change this. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) noted in its 2001 report that "countries with more liberal drug policies (such as the Netherlands) and those with a more restrictive approach (such as Sweden) do not have very different prevalence rates".[17][18] However, in several later yearly reports from EMCDDA this statement is denied through statistical data[19] and the quoted statement is not repeated. Law enforcement in the United StatesThe 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. CriticismCritics say "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:
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). Opponents of Zero Tolerance believe that such a policy neglects investigation on a case-by-case basis and may lead to unreasonably harsh penalties for crimes that may not warrant such penalties in reality. Another criticism of zero tolerance policies is that it makes no room for lack of judgement. For example, a crime enforced under zero tolerance rules may not make any excuses for someone who committed the crime under physical duress or insanity, and may simply ask the question "Did this person commit this crime: Yes or no?" Proponents might argue this is exactly the point; if the person commits the crime then they should receive their punishment. See alsoNotes
References
External links
fr:Tolérance zéro it:Tolleranza zero nl:Nultolerantiebeleid pt:Tolerância zero fi:Nollatoleranssi sv:Nolltolerans |
