Zero tolerance

"[12] The idea behind zero-tolerance policies can be traced back to the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act, which was approved in New Jersey in 1973[13][14] and had the same underlying assumptions.

[13][15][16] The ideas behind the 1973 New Jersey policy were later popularized in 1982, when a US cultural magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, published an article by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling about the broken windows theory of crime.

[18] On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, nearly all the scientific studies conclude that it failed to play the leading role in the reduction of crimes that is claimed by its advocates.

However, the experience of the vast majority of New Yorkers led them to precisely the opposite conclusion and allowed a Republican to win and retain the Mayor's office for the first time in decades, in large part because of the perception that zero-tolerance policing was playing key to the city's improving crime situation.

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 any impact on the evolution of offenses.

Broken Windows is a highly discretionary police activity that requires careful training, guidelines, and supervision, as well as an ongoing dialogue with neighborhoods and communities to ensure that it is properly conducted[22]Sheldon Wein has set out a list of six characteristics of a zero-tolerance policy:[23] Wein sees those points as representing "focal meaning" of the concept.

Various institutions have undertaken zero-tolerance policies such as in the military, in the workplace, and in schools in an effort to propagate the persecution of behavior deemed socially disordered or unacceptable.

If people fear that their co-workers or fellow students may be fired, terminated, or expelled, they may not come forward at all when they see behavior deemed unacceptable.

[25] Similar concepts in other countries, such as Sweden,[26] Italy,[27] Japan,[28] Singapore[29] China, India, and Russia[30] have since been labeled zero-tolerance.

[25][31] For example, research from Switzerland indicates that emphasis on problem drug users "seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive for young people.

"[32] More generally, zero-tolerance advocates hold the aim of ridding society of all illicit drug use and that criminal justice has an important role in that endeavor.

In 1980, the Swedish Minister of Justice dropped its practice of giving waivers for possession of drugs for personal use after years of its lowering of thresholds.

In 1988, all non-medicinally prescribed usage became illegal, and in 1993, the enforcement of personal use was eased by permitting the police to take blood or urine samples from suspects.

[33][34][35] The term is used in the context of drunk driving to refer to a lower illegal blood alcohol content for drivers under the age of 21.

Students and sometimes staff, parents, and other visitors who possess a banned item or perform any prohibited action for any reason are automatically punished.

School administrators are barred from using their judgment, reducing severe punishments to be proportional to minor offenses, or considering extenuating circumstances.

Zero tolerance violates principles of health and human services and standards for the education and healthy growth of children, families and communities.

Public administration and disability has supported principles that include education, employment, housing, transportation, recreation, and political participation in the community,[47] which zero-tolerance groups claim are not a right in the US.

[48] In the kids for cash scandal, Judge Mark Ciavarella, who promoted a platform of zero tolerance, received kickbacks for constructing a private prison that housed juvenile offenders and then proceeded to fill the prison by sentencing children to extended stays in juvenile detention for offenses as minimal as mocking a principal on Myspace, scuffles in hallways, trespassing in a vacant building, and shoplifting DVDs from Walmart.

The documentary Kids for Cash interviews experts on adolescent behaviour who argue that the zero-tolerance model has become a dominant approach to policing juvenile offences after the Columbine shooting.

[50] Subsequently, Wein has proposed standards which arguments for zero-tolerance policies must meet in order to avoid such fallacious inferences.