Broken Windows And Zero Tolerance Essay

Based on the research, the context of “zero tolerance” policies has been examined. Furthermore, this study identifies whether these policies have essentially created effective solutions or merely increased problems for institutions and children.

Crime rates and particularly the rates of violent and gun related crimes are rising in most rich countries. Targets for blame include higher drug use, higher inequality and greater availability of weapons. While Liberal politics tends to favor rehabilitation and structural improvement to combat crime the right wing has always seen criminality as a rational choice that can be combated by deterrence. Zero Tolerance policing aims to stop serious crime by clamping down on the minor crimes like graffiti that the practitioners believe lead to further crimes and using custodial sentences for first offences. It includes set responses to particular crimes by the police although the courts maintain some discretion. Zero Tolerance is not necessarily

Zero-tolerance policies developed to prevent drug abuse and violence in school in 1990 in the U.S. Even if those behaviors or small things minor offenses were done by accident or unconsciously, students get prosecuted and sent into the juvenile justice system as a punishment. Schools create disciplines for suspending and expelling students when they break certain rules. For example, if a student brings a weapon to school, including items that may not hurt anyone like nail clippers and toy guns, if a student has drugs, including medications or alcohol on campus, if a student says anything that someone could get as a threat, if a student does not obey teacher’s instruction, if a student fights with other students, the student would be given punishment with no choice. After adopting this policy, the number of school suspensions and dismissals increased, and the number of students who send into the prison also increased as well. Therefore, the school to prison pipeline became an issue in the education system.

With the creation of the zero tolerance policy, it changed the way student are being disciplined. In the 1990’s, in fear of the increasing crime rate, The United States Congress created a law that allowed public schools to enforce strict disciplinary policies for misbehaving students (Mental Health America). The zero tolerance policy states: “[the policy] mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context”

Previously, principals were thought to have too much discretion when deciding disciplinary actions for students (American University Radio, 2017). Now, zero tolerance policies do not allow for discretion at all. There is a protocol that teachers and administrators must follow regardless of individual circumstance. Students may receive several consequences that include: in school suspension, out of school suspension, expulsion, and/or arrest depending on the offense.

The “broken window” policy was used to put officers on foot patrol in community neighborhoods in order to prevent household crimes such as burglary and vandalism. This main goal for policing these neighborhoods, “was

In the article, “Is Broken Windows a Broken Theory of Crime?” Kevin Drum defines the Broken Windows theory as a theory which “suggests that tolerance of small acts of disorder creates an environment that leads to rising amounts of serious crime. So if police crack down on small offenses – petty vandalism, public lewdness, etc. – crime reductions will follow” Though this theory has been around for a long time, it is still not a sound theory of crime.

From the beginning, the zero tolerance policies have been reactionary policies to problems that have other root causes that cannot be solved by criminalizing every action that falls outside of the law, and by mandating punishment for all school violations regardless of the situation or circumstance, schools systems have created larger educational problems than they have solved in their reaction to some very unfortunate school shootings.

The broken window policy, as observed in the 1980s, refers to crime in a society represented by the analogy that if a window on a building that is broken goes unrepaired, the rest of the windows will get broken as well. An example would be the stop-and-frisk method, where people are searched against their consent with no reasonable doubt for crime. This creates many convictions of less serious offenses such as misdemeanors. Similar to that, the “war on drugs” imposed by the U.S. government is actions they take to stop the illegal drug trade but is often disapproved because of the less serious offenses getting cracked down on such as marijuana. Both of these are effecting the lower and middle class because they are the ones being targeted on the streets and charged with these insignificant crimes. The problem economically

The broken windows theory, originally pioneered by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling argues that a broken window is a sign that no one cares about the appearance of the property. This proverbial broken window in turn encourages other residents to neglect their property. This further sends the entire neighborhood into a downward spiral, we begin to see large amounts of litter scattered throughout the neighborhood, home owners move out, houses become vacant and left to deteriorate, rental properties begin to spring up, and single family homes are turned into multifamily homes. As the income of residents decreases so does the property value of the neighborhood, and gradually a criminal element begins to establish itself within the neighborhood.

The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that if a neighborhood looks rotten then the more trouble it welcomes. In 1982, George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson released an article focusing on the importance of the disorder. This theory is strongly attached to the African- American community. An area that shows a low population of existences states that fear or crime related situations caused the massive egress of residents. The lack of people to care for a community results into buildings looking forgotten. Therefore, broken windows appearance is a great way for convicts to hide because no one would go near a place that comes into view as spine-chilling. In additions, this produces a high risk of anxiety for African -American males believe that any moment a police officer can stop, question, and frisk them out of anticipation.

The theories regarding to broken windows have commonly has meandered on its path away from the link between disorder and crime to be a direct or indirect relationship. The direct relationship is dependent on

“Zero-Tolerance Policy” is the leading cause of most disobedient students, the reason why most students drop out of school and the cause of insubordination among students. The Zero-Tolerance Policy is a policy that, like the name states, has zero-tolerance for anything. Anything seen as a threat or anything that sends an inappropriate message towards the community is considered bad and the student could get arrested, suspended and/or expelled. The Zero-Tolerance policy applies to any student, regardless if a student has any health problems and falls to any student between the ages of 4-18. It could also apply to a student who could have the lowest amount of infractions possible. They say that removing students is necessary for learning, but, in doing that, they hurt the student as well. Some places don’t provide alternative places for students to learn at, really taking away their education. If it really ensures a safe and orderly environment for children, then there should be proof. There is no actual proof that it makes students feel safer (Wahl, "School Zero Tolerance Policies Do Harm" par. 1). It alienates the student and makes the student feel as if they are the “odd-one out”. Due to the injustices that this creates, the Zero-Tolerance Policy is ineffective, because it teaches students injustice, lowers students academic rates and minor offences are punished.

The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.

Each student would be evaluated based on their record, where and when the incident occurred, and what the circumstances were surrounding the incident. If a student was relatively good kid with no past disciplinary action history, the school management was much more likely to have a punishment that actually taught him or her something. But times changed and education environment in public schools also changed considerably in recent years. Zero tolerance policies are concerning issues that are thought to be extremely dangerous in today’s society. The three main focuses of these policies are incidences of violence, illegal drugs, and alcohol. Zero tolerance treats children as if they were adults and takes away the ‘innocence of a child’ philosophy. This strategy could be extremely safe to the lives of the good students and everything happens by treating all offenses dealing with the aforementioned issues as well as all students equally whether the student has had a flawless record or not.