This House Believes That Zero Tolerance Policing is a Good Tactic for Fighting Crime

Zero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. 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.[1]

There has to be a meaningful mechanism in place to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but that damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured. It is the law-abiding majority who should be the prime focus of the protection the State offers.

[1] Marshall, Jayne, ‘Zero Tolerance Policing’, Information Bulletin, Issue 9, March 1999, www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB9.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011

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. Labeling 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.[1]

[1] Becker, Howard S., ‘Labeling Theory’, from Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, 1963, http://fasnafan.tripod.com/labelingtheory.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011

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 encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many 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 re-offending.

The earlier on in the chain of criminality that people are given help, the greater chance there is of success that a cycle of re-offending will not develop.[1]

[1] Petersila, Joan, ‘When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences’, Sentencing & Corrections, No.9, November 2000, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011

Only idealists believe that prisons have rehabilitative role; we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards, and thus 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.

If punishment is not proportionate it simply breeds resentment.[1]

[1] Maiese, Michelle, ‘Retributive Justice’, Knowledge Base, May 2004,  www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/, accessed 20 September 2011

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 Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.

If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.

[1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001 http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/html/zero%20tolerance.htm

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 Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.

If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.

[1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001 http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/html/zero%20tolerance.htm

Zero tolerance creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground. If people perceive that they have a greater chance of being caught, they are less likely to commit an offence. Strict punishments provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant. 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.[1]

There has to be a meaningful mechanism in place to punish actions that don’t merit criminal punishment, but that damage the quality of life of others, especially through constant repetition. In this way a slide into more serious lawlessness and criminality can be prevented, and the rights of the law-abiding majority to walk the streets and live peacefully with their neighbours can be secured. It is the law-abiding majority who should be the prime focus of the protection the State offers.

[1] Marshall, Jayne, ‘Zero Tolerance Policing’, Information Bulletin, Issue 9, March 1999, www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB9.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011

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. Labeling 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.[1]

[1] Becker, Howard S., ‘Labeling Theory’, from Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, The Free Press, 1963, http://fasnafan.tripod.com/labelingtheory.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011

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 encourages criminality. Rehabilitation through the prison system is not just a possibility but a central tenet of many 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 re-offending.

The earlier on in the chain of criminality that people are given help, the greater chance there is of success that a cycle of re-offending will not develop.[1]

[1] Petersila, Joan, ‘When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences’, Sentencing & Corrections, No.9, November 2000, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011

Only idealists believe that prisons have rehabilitative role; we have to look at the reality. Juveniles sent to prison are less employable afterwards, and thus 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.

If punishment is not proportionate it simply breeds resentment.[1]

[1] Maiese, Michelle, ‘Retributive Justice’, Knowledge Base, May 2004,  www.beyondintractability.org/essay/retributive_justice/, accessed 20 September 2011

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 Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.

If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.

[1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001 http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/html/zero%20tolerance.htm

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 Sydney’s has been similarly racist[1] and Liverpool’s system was closed down because of corruption and unacceptable aggression by police officers.

If the police are to be fully respected they should behave in a courteous and fair manner. While treating all citizens in a respectable and decent manner – never using unnecessary force. Zero tolerance policing reduces police accountability, openness to the public, and community cooperation.

[1] Kennedy, Michael Hartley, ‘Zero tolerance policing and Arabic-speaking young people’, New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, 2001 http://www.nswccl.org.au/docs/html/zero%20tolerance.htm

Urban regeneration is one of the most powerful ways of targeting crime, and zero tolerance policing detracts from that effort. 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. Regeneration has worked on its own to solve crime problems; this can be seen in Hong Kong and Brixton in London.

There is no point building in inner cities if we don’t protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism by concrete and certain means. 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. It is these businesses which are vital to raising the standard of living. Zero tolerance policing is often seen to lead to the return of public transport and services to deprived areas because it can be protected through a guaranteed means.[1]

[1] Kurki, Leena, ‘Restorative and Community Justice in the United States’, 2000, 27 Crime & Just. 235, www.julianhermida.com/polnotesbrokenwindows.htm, accessed 21 September 2011

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. [1]

[1] Croall, Hazel, Understanding white collar crime, Open University Press 2001, www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204279.pdf, accessed 21 September 2011

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, in the United States for example a 1994 report estimated the annual cost at $674 billion.[1] 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. [2]

However, with economic hardship comes higher likelihood of petty crime. It is for this reason that those in the lower classes are more likely to commit crime than those in higher classes. This effect is heightened in the aftermath of a recession. As people feel less and less willing to pay and put the blame on society, they are more likely to steal. It is cost effective in as much as it is less expensive than prison and is ultimately less expensive to society than ignoring the criminality.

[1] Shapiro, Emily, ‘Cost of Crime: A Review of the Research Studies’, Information Brief Minnesota House of Representatives, August 1999, p. 15, www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/costcrime.pdf, accessed 21 September 2011

[2] Friedman David D., ‘Rational Criminals and Profit-Maximizing Police: Gary Becker's Contribution to the Economic Analysis of Law and Law Enforcement’, Cambridge University Press 1995, http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Becker_Chapter/Becker_Chapter.html, accessed 21 September 2011

There is no proof that zero tolerance is effective and yet it comes at the great expense of full police accountability and practical financial outlay.

An examination of the main ‘success stories’ of zero tolerance reveal that not all success can be attributed to the zero tolerance approach. In fact, the vast majority of the improvement in these circumstances were largely attributed to simultaneous social and economic changes.

In New York, the decline of crime rate started prior to 1993 and the arrival of Rudy Giuliani to his post. During Giuliani’s time in power a similar decrease in crime was happening in other major US cities. The main factors that can be attributed to this decrease in crime were economic and demographic ones. With huge economic growth millions of jobs were being created and taken by young people. Simultaneously, there was a move from cocaine to other drugs and this also reduced street crime. The economists Steven Levitt and John Donahue even famously argued that the primary cause of the decrease in crime in New York during the 1990s was actually the legalization of abortion in 1973.[1]

Therefore, it is these social and economic problems which should be targeted if we are to see a successful reduction in crime.

[1] Donohue, John J., and Levitt, Steven D., ‘The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508&http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime, accessed 21 

Economic and demographic changes will always impact crime rates and of course, these factors would have played their part in the noticeable improvement in New York. However, zero tolerance has proved successful in many instances and provides a more stable promise of crime reduction less susceptible to transient factors (such as economic and demographic ones).

For example, the Swedish parliament introduced its ‘drug-free society’ as the official goal for the drug policy in 1978. Long before such policies were called ‘zero tolerance. The Attorney General in 1980 stopped allowing for waivers for possession of drugs for personal use. Meanwhile, police were to prioritize the crack down on those in possession of drugs. In 1988 all non-medicinally prescribed usage became illegal. Finally, in 1993 the police were permitted to take blood or urine samples from suspects.[1]

This zero tolerance approach is now cited by the UN as one the main reason for Sweden's relatively low drug prevalence rates.[2]

[1] Wikipedia, ‘Zero Tolerance’, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance, accessed 21 September 2011

[2] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Sweden’s Successful Drug Policy: A Review of the Evidence, February 2007, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/Swedish_drug_control.pdf, accessed 21 September 2011