Strategic-Oriented Policing involves five categories to prove its success. First, we have Zero Tolerance which can be defined and explained in many variety ways. There is no clear definition to zero tolerance however its effectiveness depends upon how you apply it to your community. It can range from being tough on crime, strict, non- discretionary, law enforcement, and or police action against minor offenses and disorder. Being tough on crime can be as easily as something being done. Doesn’t mean that it has to be a large case that is on the front page of the paper. It is simply a start to show change and then to progress from. Nothing great and nothing small but frankly being done- showing growth and change. It can mean that the law …show more content…
No tolerance is just that- if the law is breaking no matter what the content the suspect will be arrested. There is no what if or let’s play the badge or show favoritism or overlook certain crimes more so than others. With zero tolerance we cannot over look this even if it seems to be the smallest infraction. Next, there will be increased patrols in a variety of areas and communities. Sometimes in a community police patrol at certain times of the day and most in neighborhoods and or communities know this. They know what time they will be approaching and they schedule their misbehavior and actions around this time. If police start patrol at all different times and no one knows when they will show up or what corner they will be patrolling- you may see a slight difference with perhaps the selling of drugs and maybe prostitution for example. Also let’s say that you have drug dealers on a certain corner most times of the day. If a patrol pulls up and thus decides to maybe let them know they would like to take a picture of them- this would not be allowed because most drug dealer, gang members, prostitutes, etc. does not want their picture taken and will flee. This type of patrolling could take place and be unknown as to …show more content…
If there is a great amount of gang activity- ongoing organization or group of three or more people and can be formal or informal engaging in activities of criminal acts which have a common name, sign, color and or symbol associated with them. They type of activity would be things such as perhaps wearing certain clothing, jewelry, badges, symbols to communication verbal and could be nonverbal threats, being that of handshakes or gestures of any kind, defacing private and or personal property, Stealing, trespassing and could be as serious as threats, attacks, and not limited to soliciting other individuals for gang membership. Then, we have Directed patrols which can involve and not limited to prostitution stings, and undercover operations. Also, there needs to be heavy law-enforcement presence that would be profoundly needed. Lastly, we need many traffic check-points in and surrounding these communities. Many things that would need to be enforced is that of loitering and trespassing for example. Strategic –Oriented Policing can come with different approaches because many different groups come with different problems but similar solutions. The National Institute of Justice states that “These various approaches may be aimed at goals that include crime prevention, effective use of police
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.
Chapter five, “Form, Function and Management of the Police Gang Unit,” analyzes the police response to gangs by examining the structure, functions and management of
Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is no point building in inner cities if we don't protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug
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.
Zero tolerance started as a way to keep guns out of schools until the staff at school started to use it as a way to report and punish non serious offences (Heitzeg, 2009).
Zero tolerance policies have been implemented for a variety of reasons and within a broad range of applications. The two most well known however are California’s three-strikes law and the declaration of schools as gun-free zones. California’s three-strikes law was passed in 1994 and is an escalating scale of sentencing. Defendants convicted of a previous felony, or on their “second strike”, would be sentenced to state prison for double the term normally provided for
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”
The term “zero tolerance” emerged from the get-tough rhetoric surrounding the war on drugs (McNeal, 2016). In the 1990’s, the term moved to into the educational vernacular due to a mass fear of violence in schools, particularly in reference to firearms. The Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, solidified the implementation of these get-tough policies (McNeal, 2016) and by 1998, the rehabilitative behavioral processes on most campuses across the country were replaced with zero tolerance policies (Rodríguez, 2017). Although they were implemented to combat school violence, school related deaths, despite the perception, have actually decreased since the 1990s (Welch & Payne, 2010). However, zero tolerance policies are still becoming more and more prevalent in schools. These policies have
Rebecca London, a research professor at UC Santa Cruz, explains about how the zero tolerance policy plays a critical role in developing the school-to-prison pipeline. The zero tolerance policy was implemented in 1990 in hopes to reduce the amount of criminal related activity in schools (London 2017). Because of the policy, many minor or small infringement of the school rules criminalized at-risk students. For example, students were punished heavily for carrying nail clippers, having over the counter medications, and even cutting the lunch line (London 2017). Students who partake in any of the examples or anything similar will be suspended or face tougher consequences than normal discipline actions compared to a privileged school. By punishing
Zero-tolerance policies are school or district mandates that predetermine “consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (Position Statement 46: Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools, 2014).
This study is aimed to investigate zero tolerance policing and the implementation of its policies into society. By focusing on the pros and cons of this type of policing it will answer the overall question on whether or not zero tolerance policing is efficient and effective within society. The theories behind zero tolerance policing can provide specific reasons for why or why not policing needs more or less discretion when performing certain functions. There are certain legal aspects that back up decisions made by officers and targeting the statistical data provides the rates of effectiveness with zero tolerance policing. Zero tolerance policing is data based upon implementation, the needs of the people backed with the results of implementation decide which statistical method of policing is best for society. Based on the finding from the data of societal measurement and effectiveness the decision on whether or not to continue pursuing zero tolerance policing or revert to other methods can be completely valid to specific fact based results.
Zero tolerance policing holds that strict non-discretionary law enforcement that is tough on crime, specifically minor offenses will decrease more serious crime. This policing style is closely related
“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.
A zero- tolerance policy exists in almost every organization. Corporations, government agencies, and universities are or have adopted the policy. “The policy is considered to be a practical tool for combating problems and also viewed as a political tool” (Curwin & Mendler, 1999). Zero tolerance means different things to different people. The can be two companies with the same policy; however deal with the problem in radically different ways. Zero tolerance is a concept that sounds straightforward and simple, but can be complex (1999).