Pros And Cons Of Zero Tolerance Policing

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.

Our society for the most part has a set of written laws by which it operates under. Laws govern our behavior in society and list punishments by which individuals that break them will be prosecuted and sentenced. Our criminal justice system is essential made up of three major intuitions which see a case from the beginning and through the trial and finally to the punishment phase ("How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?," 2014). Our society needs laws and punishment for those who violet the laws otherwise we would live in a world of chaos. In this paper we will examine various aspects of the criminal process from arrest through sentencing and appeal.

Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common under zero tolerance (Dennis, page 37)

‘A Peacemaking Approach to Criminology’ was written by Louis J. Gesualdi, and published in 2013. It contains a review of different writings, which relate to criminology. The main argument of Gesualdi lies in promoting a humane way of handling crime and deviants. The book proposes a peaceable way of dealing with offenders in a manner that accords respect to human rights. Further, Gesualdi notes that the criminal justice system is concentrated on inflicting harm on the offenders by punishing them. He argues that the system is fixated on the notion of reacting to crime rather than prevention. Hence, the book proposes an approach where restorative justice and prevention of crime can be accommodated in the criminal justice system. The main

Even though the public education field is determined to end violence in schools, the continuing pressure of the negative effects of zero-tolerance policy engulfs students’ records undesirably. More than three decades have passed and zero-tolerance approaches in schools have failed. Whereas cases should be judged on an individual basis, zero-tolerance policy negatively affects the relationship of education with juvenile justice given that zero-tolerance policies do not accommodate adolescent development.

People in favor of zero tolerance policy support it for various reasons. With zero tolerance policies in place, school security programs are often more wide-ranging and have many preventative measures built into them (Walker, 2009). Additionally, parents report that they feel better about their child’s safety because the policy calls for all behavior to comply with the policy and if it does not, then those students are removed (Walker, 2009). Another advantage to zero tolerance policies is that if schools lack metal detectors, there is no apparent difference in the level of violence when zero tolerance policies are in place (Walker, 2009). When implementing zero tolerance policies, schools anticipate to decrease the number of offenses not only by excluding students via either suspension or expulsion. The focus of zero tolerance policies is the notion that “strong enforcement can act as a deterrent to other potentially disruptive students” (Skiba, 2014). Expulsions and long-term suspensions are strong reactions to the above offenses, especially to miniscule incidents, and they send direct messages when used (Skiba, 2014). Supporters hope that these strong messages will drive out violence, weapons, drugs, alcohol, and sexual harassment (Skiba,

The criminal justice system is a set of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate laws. Different jurisdictions have diverse laws, agencies, and ways of managing criminal justice processes. In recent years, it has been debated that the criminal justice system has two primary and possibility conflicting perspectives known as the retributive justice approach and the restorative justice approach. Retributive justice and restorative justice have contrasting approaches when imposing punishment, that will be explored within this research paper, in regards to the disadvantages and potential advantages resulting from the implementation of it’s polices within the criminal justice system. These two perspectives have been implemented amongst many different criminal justice systems internationally, however the questions still remain, what is justice? And how should justice be served? This debate has created a divide between countries, due to the differing interpretations of justice and it’s response to criminal activity. The statistical information has been extracted from various online sources listed within the references as well as primary and secondary sources, “Prisons” by Haley, James and “Alternatives to Prisons” by Jennifer Skancke.

The term “zero tolerance” has been interpreted and used widely in public debate. For this reason there are arguments as to whether it is beneficial to incorporate zero tolerance policing into justice systems globally. The term “Zero Tolerance Policing” is ambiguous. To some, it suggests aggressive law enforcement under which no anti-social behaviours will be tolerated. To others, it refers to a policing strategy carefully designed to combat the crime problems of a specific locality (Australian Institute of Criminology 1999, 1). The purpose of this report is to provide a critical analysis of both the strengths and the weaknesses that the zero tolerance policing model has. This is done by presenting the strengths – targeting

In order to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of ZTP as a model of policing, this report reframes these terms into a cost/benefit analysis based on societal impact. Put simply, do the benefits of ZTP outweigh its costs to society, in particular to the fair application of justice and upholding of individual citizens rights?

When it comes to policing and the hot spot techniques used by law enforcement usually focus on smaller areas usually in urban areas where crime is to be higher. Researchers have found that most urban police departments use computers to map crime verses manpower of actually police monitoring. Alone with some critics, I agree that this approach is unethical resulting in discriminatory practices with law enforcement which simply targets black communities (Rosenfeld, n.d.). But we have to look at a different side to the method; some feel that it is very effective in terms of making a community safer, and also creating better education and recreational services with the neighborhood,. Some researchers believe that the hot spot method is a good

Zero tolerance policies are derived from the theory of the classical school (Saeler, 2015). The classical theory believes in deterring crime

The great philosopher Aristotle once said, ”At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.” Ever since the beginning of mankind, countless of different communities have implemented their own versions of justice to their lifestyles. From the first groups of hunter gatherers enforcing certain rules to stop members of their tribe from thieving to people in the Twenty-first Century debating about the political correctness of the death penalty, justice has always had several essential components that allow it to function in any society. In short, justice is the retribution or the mere idea of a punishment that follows a harmful or negative act that compromises the stability

The role of zero tolerance has a broad impact on student life. The zero-tolerance policy began in the late 1980s in schools with the power to expel any students (Beger 2002). Before, teachers and school authority used to handle the situation and provide punishment. Today, schools accepted the SRO programs to control misconduct and illegal acts on school property. The reason behind the increase of use SROs approach is due to the drug issue, violent, and shooting at schools. However, if the students feel that the police in schools and rules of school are fair and just, then eventually students will follow the rules and provide safer school surroundings (Beger 2002).

A wise man once proclaimed: “when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty” (Thomas Jefferson); an idea well reflected by our criminal justice system. For that one essential indicator that factor into the compliance of people with the law is that of the perceived legitimacy of the system and its administrators. More than its perceived effectiveness, it is the people’s perception of the fairness and impartiality of the system and its enforcers that help build its legitimacy. Thus, for an institution to be conferred as legitimate and result in the public’s adherence to its laws, it must engage in morality and objectivity. Similarly, the perceived lack of legitimacy in a system and its officials will also affect the public’s compliance with the law and result in disobedience.

Prison system is one of the most important compositions in law system. It’s been a long time since society has tacitly approved that criminals should be put in jail as a punishment. However, more and more drastic debates over whether to punish criminals or to rehabilitate them emerge in society. The public has gradually changed stereotypes about criminal punishment and came up with the idea of prison abolition, which can be defined as utilizing more humane and efficient systems to replace the conventional prison system. Three points are included in this essay to support prison abolition, which are that unfair trail caused by racism and poverty has already damaged the justice of prison system, that prison