Zero Tolerance Policing 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.

The Associations of Chiefs of Police created this website as a police informational site. It is an educational site that explains the hiring process, basic requirements, training and academy life, and skills candidates should process. The site also offer a virtual ride along. I can use this site to explain the training and academy life of a cadet.

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

The adoption of this policy has exposed a great deal of racism existing in the police force. The worst disparities in arrests between African Americans and whites were in the crimes where officers were given the most discretion, including: possession of small amounts of marijuana, loitering and disorderly conduct. In a study of New Jersey police departments it was found that black people were two to six times more likely to be arrested for these low level crimes(3). When the amount of discretion officers are given goes up, it causes the disparities in arrests to increase. This means there is implicit bias in at least some police officers, against African Americans. While zero tolerance policing is nonsensical and horrific, what it has done is offer a crystal clear window showing the racism indisputably existing in the police force, and the necessity of

"Zero tolerance" policies are the new theme in fighting weapons and drugs in schools. These policies behind the pressure of President Clinton have been enacted in 47 states. The idea is to encourage states to get tough on youth that threaten their own safety and the safety of others. Some of the more popular measures with these policies include installing metal detectors at school entrances, the use of armed security guards to patrol and monitor students, and the automatic removal of students who break rules regarding weapons and drugs. According to the Department of Education, school districts that have enacted these policies are showing improvements in these areas. For example, Dade county public school officials seized only 110 guns in the past year from 193 the previous year after enacting a zero tolerance policy.

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

I agree with you that, zero policing can be either good or bad. For instance, on the bad side, police misconduct and abuse of power have increased as a direct result of zero tolerance policing. Usually, the level of police misconduct and abuse of power is always higher in neighborhoods where big numbers of ethnic and racial minorities live.

A person could be given large prison sentences for a miniscule amount of a controlled substance. These Zero Tolerance ideology was developed in 1973 by the New Jersey Police. It was picked up in the 1982, when a magazine wrote an article on the “broken windows theory” of the American Legal system. This theory reflects that if a society is able to maintain against smaller crimes such as broken windows and vandalism, a more orderly society will result. “ The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and antisocial behavior.”- (Wikipedia, web, 26 Feb 2017) This has shown to be

“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.