Zero tolerance policies get a lot of bad publicity because they can lead to severe punishments for minor infractions. But are they more effective than traditional policies of punishment which ratchet up the penalty for each subsequent offense?
2006-10-20 04:06:41 · 9 answers · asked by cmsb705 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The ex-mayor of New York, Guilani, adopted a zero tolerance policy when he was in office and crime went down drastically. I can't remember the exact percentage but it was drastic. Keep this in mind, if somebody gets arrested and they end up staying in jail for at least a couple days, that is a couple days they are out there committing crimes. I arrested the same prostitute everyday for 3 weeks in a row. They just wouldn't keep her and then she wouldn't show up for court so there would be warrants out on her. You would take her in and they would just let her go on an unsecure bond. All that wasted time dealing with her could have been used on other things if they had locked her stupid butt up. So yes, so I like zero tolerance. I do. Because believe it or not, cops do give a lot of breaks. But when you take their discretion away, alot of people go to jail and the judges have to give sentences as well.
2006-10-20 05:19:19 · answer #1 · answered by Sheila V 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they can be quite effective as a punishment and a deterrent to those who may violate rules or guidelines. When I was a HR manager, we had a zero tolerance for re-hires......we didn't re-hire anyone for any reason. We had one of the lowest turnover rates in our company. (we have over 300 branches). I know this seems a bit harsh, but it worked. Our employees came to work everyday and on time. Call offs were minimum and training cost were low as well. If you give the consequences for an action and 'lay down the law' so to speak, prior to any infraction, and everyone is aware of this and knows that the punishment will be the same for everyone, you will have more willing participants. I am very much in favor of zero tolerance, as long as everyone is informed of it and understands the policy before getting into whatever they are getting into.
2006-10-20 04:15:33 · answer #2 · answered by NolaDawn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The type of crime always justifies the punishment. Unfortunately our legal system takes other matters into factor. Zero tolerance works with some people yet other people just don't learn or don't care. I don't necessarily believe in zero tolerance because if it's a first time offense than it may have just been a bad judgment on the person's behalf. Repeat offenders need to be dealt harsher punishments. In any case whether it's effective or not it all depends on the person. Some people just don't learn =)!
2006-10-20 04:21:02 · answer #3 · answered by bobbythompson 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Im from Arizona, we have charter schools and vouchers. The charter schools are cleaning up and they have zero tolerance policies. They get the state education funds that a public school would get for having the student. The competition with a charter is much more real and powerful at making the public schools get tough, not just talk. It makes them get tough, and stay in touch with parents and the community. In my opinion that is a good thing. Remember that it was an Arizona high school that beat MIT in engineering. Note that the team members are all illegals, and have to pay out of country tuition to go to an engineering program, but thats a different story. PS, as a "parent" to a parent, you dont want to be another "it cant happen to me" story. If its a drug rich environment, you cant afford not to have your child tested for drugs. The stuff out there is very addictive, and has mild enough side effects that you cant really tell, especially not before they have stolen thousands or tens of thousands from you and friends to pay for a habit. Meth is evil.
2016-05-22 05:05:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In regards to schools, I do not think zero tolerance policies are effective. Now that it's common in some schools to suspend kids for several days for (example)calling someone "gay" (that's"sexual harassment")or bringing tylenol to school, the truly troubled kids are quietly walking into school, doing damage, and everyone wonders how it could be prevented.If the school is too busy trying to prevent silly little infractions, they'll never have time for the big issues. Lets face it, with the way the US school year started out this year, is zero tolerance really helping?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-10-20 09:06:13 · answer #5 · answered by answerer 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Zero tolerance should be adhered to for those infractions which are dangerous to public safety. Illegal drugs, car accidents involving deaths, and major felonies are some that should be treated this way
2006-10-20 04:25:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No they are not. Zero tolerance policies tend to be one sided and don't take into account the whole picture.
2006-10-20 04:16:34 · answer #7 · answered by omvg1 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Personally I think zero tolerance is a good thing....maybe if people get nailed hard the first time, they will not make the same mistakes again....maybe you won't have those people who have 3, 4, 0r even 5 DUIs or those people who have 5 mips....I good kick in the butt the first time might help with that.
2006-10-20 04:10:59 · answer #8 · answered by yetti 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Z T just drives the issue underground.
2006-10-20 04:15:18 · answer #9 · answered by kekeke 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋