Zero Tolerance Research Paper

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 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).

They are given complete discretion on how they want to implement rules in their district. School safety is one of the main reasons for adopting a zero tolerance of violence policy and educational leaders are focused on handling these types of situations with safety in mind. Moreover, this was the basis for which the nine students were punished. Regardless of the reasons students become involved in negative situations, they may be held responsible and face the consequences of their actions. That is, students may still be disciplined in spite of their motives. In this regard, the zero tolerance of violence policy does not preclude making decisions about student intent and motivation of individual students. Conversely, students are allowed their due process rights, where they are able to dispute any accusations or problems they have with the decisions made against

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.

In the article Zero Tolerance Laws Are Unfair the author talks about a girl who gave an ibuprofen to her friend and was suspended for “dealing drugs”. Zero-tolerance policies are to blame. Zero-tolerance policies started to become mainstream in the mid-1990’s in an effort to get students who brought either drugs, guns or alcohol to school suspended or expelled. “A zero tolerance policy is a school or district policy that 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” (Mental Health America). Since the 1990’s however, these policies have grown broader and broader to include non-violent offences, such as a student talking back to an administrator or a baseball player bringing a baseball bat to school. How is it fair that someone who gives a friend an ibuprofen receives the same punishment as someone dealing illicit drugs? School administrations need to bring their zero-tolerance back to what is federally required and lose all of the add-ons, because as zero-tolerance policies have grown to encompass the unnecessary, it is especially harmful to disabled students, students of color, and at-risk students. The growing number of suspensions and expulsions, which mean more time out of school, make it harder for those kids to graduate.

A social reformer, a civil philanthropist, and a judge by the name of James(Jim) Gray, strongly believes that no matter how loose or strict prosecutors are on drug offenders the war on drugs is going to continue until the United States can realize that the only way to solve the drug addiction problem in America is to realize that we must rehabilitate and treat drug offenders and addicts in order to prevent and eliminate drug related violence and crime(Gray, J. P. 2011. pp. 19-20). Judge Gray continues on to state that we must see and treat drug users as human beings, which according to judge Gray most Americans do not do this. Judge Gray stated that the zero tolerance policy that we have here in the United States allows little to no room

According to Wilson (2014), “zero tolerance refers to strict, uncompromising, automatic punishment to eliminate undesirable behavior.” There is a link between the criminalization of youth and zero tolerance policies (Wilson, 2014). Zero tolerance policies have been associated with the term “school-to-prison pipeline and are found in schools across the nation. These policies lead to school failure and exclusion which in turn result in bad life outcomes and mass incarceration of boys and young men of color (Wilson, 2015). “Superpredators” became the label for juveniles during the late 80’s and early 90’s because there was a rise in high-profile violent and drug-related crimes. Boot camps became popular during this period

Zero Tolerance is described in the criminal justice world as a policing strategy that involves relentless order maintenance and aggressive law enforcement, against even minor crimes and incivilities. For many decades now, most of the evidence and research found on the subject matter has been traced back to the New York City Police Department; with its most prominent era lasting throughout the 1990’s. Proponents for zero tolerance policing argue that evidence of its deterrence can be found in research stats, with homicide rates dropping 56% across United States cities between 1990 and 2009. Opponents of Zero Tolerance Policing counter those arguments by fighting the stats with the stats—although across the board, some numbers have

The stories "No More" and “Zero Tolerance for Abuse" are very similar and different. They are both interesting stories about women that get abused by their partners which may be their husband or boyfriend. It is an issue that is dealt with everyday in life, but we do not know about many things that go into this issue. In both stories, there will be details about the issues there will be similarities and differences.

“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.

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?

Every since one begins school, from kindergarten to college, one is taught a form of discipline known as a zero tolerance policy. Zero tolerance policies require predetermined punishment for offenses. Over time these punishments have been taken to drastic levels as getting police officers, court, and receiving criminal record, affecting the future of innocent children. But where should one draw the line with the level of punishment?

Zero tolerance has become the latest contemporary educational issue for the Christian school leader. Zero tolerance policies mandate predetermined consequences for specific offenses. According to a government study, more than three quarters of all U.S. schools reported having zero tolerance policies (Holloway, 2002). Systematic guidelines of enforcing zero tolerance require educational leaders to impose a predetermined punishment, regardless of individual culpability or extenuating circumstances (Gorman & Pauken, 2003). Ethical decision making and the opportunity to apply Biblical principles have taken a back seat to reactive discipline by school leaders. Societal expectations have forced proactive educational