Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Zero tolerance
Section G. Crime and punishment

’Zero tolerance’ is a phrase that first came to light as a description of the crackdown on petty crime in New York City by William Bratton, police commissioner for that city, appointed by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in January 1994.The aim of zero tolerance is to prevent petty criminals graduating to serious crime by imposing immediate and harsh sentences for petty offences such as underage drinking, small-scale drug use and dealing, shoplifting or vandalism (rather than using cautions or fines). It is this particular law- and-order policy that the arguments below are about. ’Zero tolerance’ is, however, a phrase that has come to be used in a panoply of other contexts to mean, for example, a tough and uncompromising approach to racism, fascism or violence against women.

Pros

[1] We need to find innovative and effective new weapons in the ongoing fight against crime. Zero tolerance is just such a weapon. It sends a clear, tough message that the state will condemn and punish rather than be soft and ’understanding’. This stance functions as an effective deterrent to potential offenders, especially potential young offenders, and also raises public confidence in the police and judiciary.

[2] Zero tolerance works. Murders in New York City fell by 40 per cent between 1993 and 1997, while robberies and shootings fell by 30 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. These are phenomenally impressive results. Cities in Britain (e.g. Coventry) and Australia (e.g. Melbourne) have achieved similar impressive results through implementing zero tolerance of the use of drugs and alcohol in public places. Racism in police forces and in society at large is a problem, but it is longterm and endemic, not the result of this particular policing initiative.

[3] Zero tolerance not only prevents young offenders from graduating to serious crime, it also breaks the back of organised crime by depleting the ranks of the ’foot soldiers’, especially small-time drug dealers who together provide the power base and financial resources for drugs barons and Mafia bosses. Without these petty criminals on the streets, organised crime ceases to flourish.

Cons

[1] Zero tolerance is precisely the wrong way to approach crime. Understanding and rehabilitation rather than the macho rhetoric of punishment and condemnation are the key to reducing crime. And far from raising public confidence in the police and judiciary, it makes them alienating and inflexible figures set against society, rather than agencies that can work with and for members of their community.

[2] New York’s gain is its neighbours’ loss. A high-profile crackdown on petty crime in one place simply makes the petty criminal move elsewhere to ply his/her trade. These results are bought at a heavy cost. Complaints of brutality against the New York Police Department have soared since the introduction of zero tolerance. Some police seem to have used the initiative as an occasion to oppress black communities. Zero tolerance may not cause racism, but it serves to increase and exacerbate it. Also, like mandatory sentencing, zero tolerance necessarily reduces judicial discretion in individual cases. A harsh fine or prison sentence may be inappropriate and counterproductive in many cases, but zero tolerance insists that no leniency, subtlety or professional judgement be shown by judges.

[3] Small-time drug dealers and petty thieves are not the real criminals. They are unfortunates trying to escape from poverty and deprivation through the income they can make through petty crime. Not only are they not the real criminals, they are also indefinitely replaceable from among the ranks of the poor and deprived. Once one set of petty criminals is locked up, a new set will emerge to replace them. The multimillion dollar fraudsters, money laun- derers and drug barons are the ones who must really be removed to bring down the criminal system.

Possible motions

This House would have zero tolerance.

This House would crack down on petty crime.

This House would be tough on crime.

Related topics

Mandatory prison sentences

Child curfews

Capital punishment

Sports teams punished for the behaviour of fans

Prison v. rehabilitation