Should zero-tolerance policing be official UK law and order policy?

Question

Can anyone give me examples where zero-tolerance policing has worked or not worked.

Answer 1

No it would not work unless you wanted to live in a police state. No thanks!

Answer 2

Zero Tolerance Policing Uk

Answer 3

No I don't believe it should be. I do believe however, that the CPS and the courts should hand out harsher penalties to deter people from comitting crime in the first place. They rarely give a reasonable punishment to support all the Police's hard work.

It did work up north somewhere - I can picture the guy but can't remember his name. He used zero tolerence Policing and he lost his job for it. I think he was the Chief Constable of Manchester or something - probably about 6 years ago!? I don't think it should be disregarded, but should only used for long-term problems.

Answer 4

I can say this:

In other country's, (Yemen, Iran, North Korea etc )"zero tolerance policing" is different. Penalties for minor crimes result in sentences starting with " the removal of the right index finger" for stealing. The loss of the right hand for "larceny" etc. Do you agree with the old saying "an eye for an eye"?


In Sudan, on September 1983, the Nimeiri government introduced a version of the sharia prescribing harsh corporal punishments for such crimes as murder, theft, drinking alcohol, prostitution, and adultery. These "September Laws," sometimes known as hudud (sing., hadd, penalty prescribed by Islamic law) provided for execution, flogging, amputation, and stoning as modes of punishment for both Muslims and non-Muslims.
During a twenty month period, at least ninety persons convicted of theft had their hands amputated.

Look at the Thai courts, they impose harsh sentences for drug-related offences including the death penalty. Crime is at an all-time low and 'Zero Tolerance" is not a big issue in these countries. The USA was 24th and the UK 46th in worldwide murder rates. Qatar was best at 64th and Saudi Arabia at 63rd.

Democracies "need" a control on crime. Something that says "if you do this crime, then this unfortunate thing will happen. Our jails are filled to capacity.

I think that the answer is in "the law". Laws control how we "view" and shape our society. The right laws bring about a "fair way to control the unruly". The people should always "control" the government so lawmaker's draft fair laws of the people, for the people.




The absence of crime and war in your backyard is a "Blessing" maybe we should "stiffen" penalties"? What do you think?

Answer 5

I think first of all you'd need to have a serious look at the human rights laws, as they would block any attempt to increase penalties for committing crimes. The you'd need to overhaul the actual penalties, as zero tolerance means you'd be charged for say, littering, as well as major crimes, all of which would need different levels of punishment, which we already struggle with, as its possible to get far too hih sentences for some crimes and far far too low for others. I think a simple tier system would work, with certain crimes carrying lift sentence that means life, then working down from there, say 30 years, 25 and so on. I also think a 3 strikes rule would be beneficial - repeat offenders of 'lesser' crimes work there way up the tiers - so a 3rd offence of mugging carries a far higher sentence than a first or even second. Finally for, rape or paedophilia a 3rd strike should mean castration.

Answer 6

newcastle, the police chief [and i cannot remember his name) implemented Britains first zero tolerance on drugs and drug related crime, he also had a the policy extended to include burgalry, and street crime, ie mugging ,robbery ect it worked as far as i am awarwe until he fell foul of the liberators of human rights brigade, but i was suitably impressed with the reduction of those crimes mentioned, and the morale of the officers on the street was a bonus factor ,they felt like they were doing what they joined for in the first place, to catch criminals, if i am not mistaken
it was the courts that could not cope with the amount of arrests, even for minor offences, this is what is needed. LF

Answer 7

its like this,there is a bank robbery, involved are the planner who organises it, the safe cracker expert, two gun guards, and a getaway driver, Who do the police want to catch, the one holding the bag of money or all of them.
society glorifies the criminal, much of our entertainment is criminal based,Police video of car chases if a car theif is caught and is on t.v. thats something to brag about to his mates, Tv companies and movie makers are the planners of a corrupt society. One learns by example, media outfits create the thought
the inpresionable create the action.If you are going to have zero tolerence then have it against the planners of evil thinking who promote the crimes from a comfortable position, Close down the media outfits that promote wrong thinking and let them share the prisoners cell, Stop creating evil thinking and you might stop evil action.

Answer 8

’New York style’ policing, zero tolerance policing, good old fashioned British policing....... All the same thing, just re-launched with a bit of spin. To be honest, it's all governmental smoke and mirrors!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance

What we really need to do is increase UK police officer numbers so we're on a comparable rate with other 'western' countries and then see what happens with current policing policy, which should then deliver effective policing for the UK's public.

http://bluesandtwos.blogspot.com/2006/05/police-reform-police-mergers.html

If it doesn't then it would be right to talk about Zero Tolerance Policing.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw35.pdf

As a member of the public as well as having a 'policing' interest, I see both sides of the coin.

Officers stifled with government-generated paperwork, a general feeling that police in the UK are under-valued by the Labour party.

Just look at the recent and on-going PCSO (Blunkett's Bobbies) campaign, which the government seems to have a never-ending pot of cash for, whilst refusing to honour a 27-year-old police officer pay agreement.

http://www.policecouldyou.co.uk

Police officers pay increases are taken from the 'mean' of a huge cross section of UK 'blue collar workers'. In 2005 it has been worked out that 'blue collar workers' averaged a 3% pay rise, this should have been the amount awarded to police officers in September 2006, (Yep it runs virtually a year in arrears.) but the government is refusing to honour this agreement.

http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2307

Also tied into this agreement is the police's signing away of their right to stike...... I wonder what will happen if the government decides to break the agreement after going to arbitration.....? Anyway I'm off topic....!

Do members of the public want PCSO's or proper police officers with full powers? I'd even prefer a renewed recruitment campaign for police specials over PCSO's - at least they have full police powers and look the part when out on patrol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406362&in_page_id=1770

Some areas do already experiment with zero tolerance, but this isn't without it's problems. Heightened community tension, reluctance of the public's acceptance of 'policing by consent' - we do after all have policing by consent in this country, with every citizen required to assist the police in their daily duties, alienation of the young......

Calls graded, response policing, lip service to community policing, police services and individual stations being run as a business with devolved budgets instead of being left alone to concentrate on protecting the public and preventing crime.

What most people would like to see I suppose is a police officer walking down their road every day, but let's face it, these days and under current policy it's not going to happen.

What about a police officer's individual power of discretion under Zero Tolerance Policing? Friendly word to the wise instead of heavy handed reporting of each and every offence, that would be out of the window for starters.

There is also a feeling that we're now criminalising our children with offences which would have been marked up as 'youthful' high jinx a few years ago. Is every kid a yobbo? No I'm sure you'll agree, but with current reporting of crime in the papers and other media it would seem they're the enemy on the doorstep of every home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3188726.stm

What people have to remember is that coppers are in the most good, honest, and caring public servants doing their best with limited resources and assistance. All want exactly the same as the next person - for their loved ones to be safe in their own home and the area in which they live to be free from crime. Police officers want policing of the UK to be a success for the public, give them the tools they need to do the job and then see if it needs changing afterwards.

Answer 9

Zero tolerance Policing is a myth...there aren't enough bobbies to deal with all the day to day crap, never mind all the low level dross that goes on.

Answer 10

It should yes,but it would be unworkable! The laws of the land only appear to apply to some,whilst others seem to cry victimisation and clearly are left alone.Before zero-tolerance can even be thought of,the SAME laws MUST apply to ALL!!

Answer 11

Zero tolerance gives bad feeling everywhere. It alters the whole mode of civil living.

Some laws were simply not meant to be obeyed. Not believed they would be enforced when passed.

The most disobedient law breakers in this country are people who fail to pick up dog faeces deposited by their pet dog on public land or other people's property. Lock them all up, execute the dog and throw away the key. Start with the most persistant and insidious law breakers and then persecute people you don't like even though they are not breaking the law.