4 ms·

"Zero tolerance" is essentially a legitimate sounding way to reject "Let the punishment fit the crime."

by pg 13y ago

tankenmate 13y ago
Indeed. I live in Northern Ireland; not a place known for its entirely peaceful neighbourhoods. But even here I would be shocked about a police officer arresting a student for starting a waterfight for example, even if it did result in damage to property that was not excessive. I have colleagues who wonder why I wouldn't want to move, along with my family, to the US for work.
- pizza 13y ago
  I'd like to say that most people have common sense, wherever in the world they happen to be, and that these stories are only news-worthy because they're rare.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    But these extremes have recalibrated people's expectations of what's acceptable. Is it okay to have police in schools if they're not zip-tieing children? I think it's baffling to have police officers stationed in schools.
    - girvo 13y ago
      More than baffling, I think it's disgusting.
    - notahacker 13y ago
      I'm not convinced police officers stationed in school is generally a good idea, but the bigger issue here seems to be more the actions of the police officers in question. Whilst some incidents might be open to framing by the media, there are simply no circumstances under which charging a 5 year old with battery of a police officer would be appropriate. (I think we can safely apply "zero tolerance" here; someone should be fired for sanctioning the charge) It's genuinely quite scary to think how an officer that considers that an appropriate response might react when dealing with adults suspected of committing something which might actually be a crime.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Here's the thing: I don't think Europeans can appreciate how totally and prevasively dysfunctional our inner cities are.[1] Inner city schools are rife with gang activity. Teenagers shoot each other up all the time (usually not directly in the school though, but the fights that lead to shooting often start there). Just last month in Chicago, a woman was shot in the chest while holding a child because a gun fight broke out on an alley by an elementary school.[2] Posting police might not be the best response, but its not baffling. Who the hell would want to teach at some south side Chicago schools without an armed police officer nearby? And when the suburbanites hear about kids accidentally getting shot in gang hits in parks,[3] they want police in their schools too, never mind that the dangers are far less there. [1] Chicago is the deadliest major (1m+) city in the U.S., with ~18-20 murders per 100k people per year. But it pales in comparison to small/mid-sized U.S. cities like Wilmington, DE (38 per 100k), New Orleans (53 per 100k), or Flint (65 per 100k). In comparison, London is 1.4 per 100k, Berlin 1.0 per 100k, Toronto 1.7 per 100k, and Paris is a hell-hole at 4.4 per 100k. In the neighborhoods where getting shot is a real threat, the murder rate is far higher than the above numbers per capita. The list of top 50 world cities by murder rate has U.S. cities like St. Louis hanging among company that is almost entirely cities in Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Iraq, and South Africa, or Honduras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate. Compounding the average rates is the highly segregated nature of violence in American cities. As an aside, this is apparently mostly just a list of battlefields for the drug war. Except Detroit and Mosul, which I think are not so much on major drug trade routes like say Baltimore, but rather are simply parts of failed states... [2] Last year, 319 Chicago Public School students were shot, 24 fatally so: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26/news/ct-met-cps-student-violence-0625-20120626_1_cps-students-students-shot-safe-haven-program http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26/news/ct-met-cp.... [3] http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/chicago-girl-who-performed-at-obamas-inauguration-killed-in-shooting http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/chicago-girl-who-performed....
  - northwest 13y ago
    I'd like to say that most people have common sense There may be one of the problems with police force recruiting: They set the bar so low that you don't need to be able to discern the limits anymore. And then it's also easier to just say "ok, zero it is".
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    Zero tolerance policies specifically disallow common sense though, as surely tolerance is a major part of common sense in these kinds of situations. Also rare is an imprecise term. The US jails more people per head than any other country, and also jails a larger percentage of its children than any other country in the world, so if you compare the situation in the US to the global norm, rather than rare, it would seem to be frighteningly common.
    - vacri 13y ago
      The problem with the incarceration rate is that it's not just 'US does more', but 'the US is an extreme outlier'. Pretty much all the developed nations are in the band 50-150/100k population, from memory New Zealand is an outlier at 200, and the US is... 750. It's such a mind-bogglingly extreme outlier. South Africa at the height of Apartheid 'only' had 550.
- rayiner 13y ago
  For reference, the murder rate in Belfast recently is around 3-4 per 100k. In comparably-sized cities like Newark, NJ or New Orleans, LA, it's 10-20 times higher. The peak of violence in Northern Ireland was apparently 1972, when ~500 people were killed. At the time, the area had a population of 1.5 million people, so the rate was 333 per million. At least 18 U.S. states have rates above 50 per million, and crime is the lowest in the U.S. that it has been in decades.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pasbesoin 13y ago
This morning, the first thing "zero tolerance" makes me think of is an abusive parent. It's not about "fair", it's about exactly whatever they want. Or else...
- vacri 13y ago
  Because of all the imported US media bleating on about harsher penalties for criminals, that mentality is starting to take foot here in Australia, too. Prison sentences are never 'long enough', and the public perception is shifting from the previous one that was a punishment/rehabilitation mix to one that's punishment only. The thing is, that when you talk to people about a criminal - "they did -foo-, and were locked up for -bar-", it's common to hear "that's not long enough! there needs to be a message sent!". But the Law Institute of Victoria (my state) did an interesting study: they polled people about what sentences people should receive for certain crimes, but actually gave them details of specific cases. Instead of being the shallow news "it was a burglary, the sentences was -bar-", they were given more detail. It turns out that the respondents suggested sentences were actually shorter than the sentences given in court. It's pretty easy to say "lock 'em up for longer"; it's both quick and simple. But when you actually have to think about it, you realise all the implications - from rehabilitation and reintegration, to cost of incarceration, both fiscal and social. Zero tolerance has the least amount of thought available to it, so...

"Zero tolerance" is essentially a legitimate sounding way to reject "Let the punishment fit the crime."

by pg 13y ago

"Zero tolerance" is essentially a legitimate sounding way to reject "Let the punishment fit the crime."

Indeed. I live in Northern Ireland; not a place known for its entirely peaceful neighbourhoods. But even here I would be shocked about a police officer arresting a student for starting a waterfight for example, even if it did result in damage to property that was not excessive. I have colleagues who wonder why I wouldn't want to move, along with my family, to the US for work.

pizza 13y ago
I'd like to say that most people have common sense, wherever in the world they happen to be, and that these stories are only news-worthy because they're rare.
- DanBC 13y ago
  But these extremes have recalibrated people's expectations of what's acceptable. Is it okay to have police in schools if they're not zip-tieing children? I think it's baffling to have police officers stationed in schools.
  - girvo 13y ago
    More than baffling, I think it's disgusting.
  - notahacker 13y ago
    I'm not convinced police officers stationed in school is generally a good idea, but the bigger issue here seems to be more the actions of the police officers in question. Whilst some incidents might be open to framing by the media, there are simply no circumstances under which charging a 5 year old with battery of a police officer would be appropriate. (I think we can safely apply "zero tolerance" here; someone should be fired for sanctioning the charge) It's genuinely quite scary to think how an officer that considers that an appropriate response might react when dealing with adults suspected of committing something which might actually be a crime.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Here's the thing: I don't think Europeans can appreciate how totally and prevasively dysfunctional our inner cities are.[1] Inner city schools are rife with gang activity. Teenagers shoot each other up all the time (usually not directly in the school though, but the fights that lead to shooting often start there). Just last month in Chicago, a woman was shot in the chest while holding a child because a gun fight broke out on an alley by an elementary school.[2] Posting police might not be the best response, but its not baffling. Who the hell would want to teach at some south side Chicago schools without an armed police officer nearby? And when the suburbanites hear about kids accidentally getting shot in gang hits in parks,[3] they want police in their schools too, never mind that the dangers are far less there. [1] Chicago is the deadliest major (1m+) city in the U.S., with ~18-20 murders per 100k people per year. But it pales in comparison to small/mid-sized U.S. cities like Wilmington, DE (38 per 100k), New Orleans (53 per 100k), or Flint (65 per 100k). In comparison, London is 1.4 per 100k, Berlin 1.0 per 100k, Toronto 1.7 per 100k, and Paris is a hell-hole at 4.4 per 100k. In the neighborhoods where getting shot is a real threat, the murder rate is far higher than the above numbers per capita. The list of top 50 world cities by murder rate has U.S. cities like St. Louis hanging among company that is almost entirely cities in Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Iraq, and South Africa, or Honduras: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate. Compounding the average rates is the highly segregated nature of violence in American cities. As an aside, this is apparently mostly just a list of battlefields for the drug war. Except Detroit and Mosul, which I think are not so much on major drug trade routes like say Baltimore, but rather are simply parts of failed states... [2] Last year, 319 Chicago Public School students were shot, 24 fatally so: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26/news/ct-met-cps-student-violence-0625-20120626_1_cps-students-students-shot-safe-haven-program http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-26/news/ct-met-cp.... [3] http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/chicago-girl-who-performed-at-obamas-inauguration-killed-in-shooting http://nation.time.com/2013/01/30/chicago-girl-who-performed....
- northwest 13y ago
  I'd like to say that most people have common sense There may be one of the problems with police force recruiting: They set the bar so low that you don't need to be able to discern the limits anymore. And then it's also easier to just say "ok, zero it is".
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Zero tolerance policies specifically disallow common sense though, as surely tolerance is a major part of common sense in these kinds of situations. Also rare is an imprecise term. The US jails more people per head than any other country, and also jails a larger percentage of its children than any other country in the world, so if you compare the situation in the US to the global norm, rather than rare, it would seem to be frighteningly common.
  - vacri 13y ago
    The problem with the incarceration rate is that it's not just 'US does more', but 'the US is an extreme outlier'. Pretty much all the developed nations are in the band 50-150/100k population, from memory New Zealand is an outlier at 200, and the US is... 750. It's such a mind-bogglingly extreme outlier. South Africa at the height of Apartheid 'only' had 550.
rayiner 13y ago
For reference, the murder rate in Belfast recently is around 3-4 per 100k. In comparably-sized cities like Newark, NJ or New Orleans, LA, it's 10-20 times higher. The peak of violence in Northern Ireland was apparently 1972, when ~500 people were killed. At the time, the area had a population of 1.5 million people, so the rate was 333 per million. At least 18 U.S. states have rates above 50 per million, and crime is the lowest in the U.S. that it has been in decades.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pasbesoin 13y ago

This morning, the first thing "zero tolerance" makes me think of is an abusive parent. It's not about "fair", it's about exactly whatever they want. Or else...

vacri 13y ago
Because of all the imported US media bleating on about harsher penalties for criminals, that mentality is starting to take foot here in Australia, too. Prison sentences are never 'long enough', and the public perception is shifting from the previous one that was a punishment/rehabilitation mix to one that's punishment only. The thing is, that when you talk to people about a criminal - "they did -foo-, and were locked up for -bar-", it's common to hear "that's not long enough! there needs to be a message sent!". But the Law Institute of Victoria (my state) did an interesting study: they polled people about what sentences people should receive for certain crimes, but actually gave them details of specific cases. Instead of being the shallow news "it was a burglary, the sentences was -bar-", they were given more detail. It turns out that the respondents suggested sentences were actually shorter than the sentences given in court. It's pretty easy to say "lock 'em up for longer"; it's both quick and simple. But when you actually have to think about it, you realise all the implications - from rehabilitation and reintegration, to cost of incarceration, both fiscal and social. Zero tolerance has the least amount of thought available to it, so...