Should or shouldn't the police enforce "zero-tolerance" laws?

Question

I have another topic about zero tolerance do. Wanted to hear some opinions about it. Thanks again

Answer 1

Here where I live and work we don't really have any zero tolerance laws so much as we have zero tolerance policies within some departments.

The best advice I ever got was "Our job is not to enforce the law so much as it is to enforce the spirit of the law!"  Our department has a general policy that if you get caught driving impaired, you will go to jail for DWI.  However, here, being on medication can also get you a DWI.  We recently had a 70 year old woman who was on medication and driving slightly erratically on her way to get a few groceries.  We could have given her a DWI, but that would NOT have been in the spirit of the law.  Instead I gave her a ride to her daughters house for safe keeping.

Answer 2

It totally depends on the crime patterns and the location that the zero-tolerance policy would be executed in. Zero-tolerance first got started based on a theory called " Broken Windows" which stated that if neighborhoods were allowed to get run down and shabby because of a lack of enforced laws ( like fining people for vandalism and public drunkeness) then it would encourage even more disorder. Basically the reasoning was that if one window get's broken and nobody cares enough to fix it, it will send a message that this kind of behavior is acceptable and crime will spread.

Zero-tolerance was  first employed in New York City in the late 80's and early 90's when the crime rate, especially violent crime was huge. Bill Bratton ( the police commissionar) had the cops crack down on common offenses like public drunkeness and vandalism, and as it turned out a lot of  people that were getting picked up for these things were also committing really serious offenses, and it was getting them off the streets. The crime rates went down.

That being said, while zero-tolerance may work for some areas, like big cities with big crime problems, a huge important aspect of policing practice relies on discretion, and it wouldn't make much sense to enforce every single law on the books all the time. So, in my personal opinion, I think zero tolerance laws should be enforced when needed. I spoke to the Police lt. of my city and he said that there was a certain house being rented where the people were constantly acting loud and disorderly and engaged in drug activity which was wrecking the whole neighborhood. They couldn't get these people to legitimately go away, so they enforced every single housing code they could think of, until the owner of the house evicted them, and the neighborhood peace was restored.

Zero-tolerance can work, you just have to know when to choose your battles.

Answer 3

All law enforcement should be "zero  tolerance" because it is not the officer's job to decide which laws to enforce or not enforce.

If you do not like the laws that your representatives pass then you should be forcing your representatives to change them.

If you don't fight back then you deserve to live in the police state your politicians would be happy to control.

Now the question about whether an officer has enough evidence to suspect a crime has been committed, to investigate and to arrest is a different hettle of fish entirely.

That always has and always will be part of the officers discretionary powers.

Answer 4

Zero tolerance is absurd, what we need are cops who are psychologically stable and don't need to satisfy their power trip ego's by hundcuffing 6 year old kids......

Answer 5

I'm not going to expand but I feel that we have gone way to far with ZERO tolerance. Our newer law enforcement do not seem to have the experience or family background that some of the more seasoned officers.

I feel if we are going to entrust ourselves to these peace officers, they should know that there really is a difference in many situations Zero tolerance doesn't always turn out to be the "best decision"!

Answer 6

"zero-tolerance" laws are made for a reason. It is not up to the officer to decide if the law is just or not, only to enforce the laws to the best of his abilities.

As an example, if an officer were to let an underage driver go after the person had failed a portable breath test (even drinking 1 drink) and something happens to that driver, the officer and his department would be held liable. Big money!

Of course, all the cop hater on this site will bash me for saying this, but they rather blame society for their s******g up than blame themselves. It is never their fault! It is the law is stupid or the cop is picking on them!  Everybody else is picking on them!  Here comes the thumbs down! I can see them already! LOL!

Answer 7

Sometimes "black and white" reasoning is needed to be fair to everyone. For people who are caught doing something they are clearly forbidden from doing (MIP, possession, trespass), then yes, zero tolerance is needed. For laws which are based on opinion of the arresting party or less than an exact science for arrest, then the standard system will have to do.

Answer 8

zero tolerance is the same as a dictatorship

we need flexibility