Before the adoption of any Zero Tolerance Policing Policy an organisation should also look at the “Pros and Cons” of the approach. There can be some considerable risk in adopting a Zero Tolerance Policing Policy. This is outlined by GRABOSKY P.N, 1999
It is important to recognise that indiscriminate strict enforcement of the law is not without risk. A relationship of trust between the Police and the public is essential to effective law enforcement…….A situation in which Police appear as something akin to an occupying army is likely to destroy whatever trust may have existed and inhibit the formation of trust in the future. Heavy handed law enforcement can destroy the legitimacy of the Police making their job difficult if not impossible.
Other views for and against Zero Tolerance are offered:
1 Zero Tolerance policing provides a powerful deterrent to criminals. It creates a far greater awareness of police presence because there are more officers on the ground and they are being seen by the general population to take action. Furthermore strict punishments (although not the domain of the New Zealand Police as mentioned earlier) provide another firm deterrent because they make it clear that the consequences of detection will not be a minor irritant but will result in Court appearances and possibly imprisonment. Criminals are less likely to re-offend because zero tolerance catches them early on in the escalating cycle of crimes and provides the ‘short, sharp shock.’ There is a clear message that crime will not be tolerated. Some may argue the if a law is to exist at all then it ought to be enforced.
Balancing the last comments it should also be considered, Minor offenders, gang members, and the lower socioeconomic group are extremely unlikely to be aware of the exact punishments for the crimes which they commit so deterrence doesn’t have much effect there. Many crimes are a product of necessity (through poverty and drug dependence) and therefore can only be reduced in conjunction with structural changes to the society, not by threatening punishment. The idea of a ‘short sharp shock’ is unconvincing. Labeling people as criminals at an early age actually causes them to perceive themselves as such and gives them fewer other options by placing them outside mainstream society. In addition, the labeling of people at an early age as a criminals is at direct odds with the philosophy of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 which in Section 4 (f) promotes Accepting of Responsibility for behavior and individual development. As quoted:
(f) Ensuring that where children or young persons commit offences,
(i) They are held accountable, and encouraged to accept responsibility, for their behaviour; and
(ii) They are dealt with in a way that acknowledges their needs and that will give them the opportunity to develop in responsible, beneficial, and socially acceptable ways:
2 Zero tolerance policing is extremely effective at reducing small-scale drug use and dealing by targeting patrolling and arresting. By cutting off the small time dealer on the ground we can best target the businesses of big suppliers such as the organised Gangs and the distribution of Methamphetamine Big busts have a minimal effect as they are massive operations for small result. Drug use is a huge cause of further crime. Dealing creates no go areas where criminal acts flourish. Addiction creates a need for money that can usually only be solved by theft and burglary or other dishonesty crimes. Reducing the number of Dealers and Drug Users will have a reduction effect on the Dishonesty Offending.
Again the balancing argument is that arresting small-scale dealers (many of them users and addicts themselves) and users is targeting the victims to stop the crime. As well as being unfair it is ineffective. As long as there is a demand there will be drug dealing and demand can only be stopped by rehabilitation. This does not seem to occur effectively within the current prison system. It is in big drug syndicates such as the organised gangs (which we won’t have the resources to combat if everyone is patrolling) that violence emanates from and this is usually directed toward the small time dealer or user who cannot “pay up”.
3 What is the cost of a Zero Tolerance Policy? And can we afford it as a society? Some would suggest we as a society can afford zero tolerance. Protecting businesses and creating a reputation for low crime and sound policing attracts inward investment and immigration both to a country as a whole and to individual areas. The cost to a country of burglary, theft and vandalism etc per year is significant. Deterrence reduces the number of crimes that police are forced to investigate and although prisons are expensive the reduction in recidivism should start to empty them in time. The most important question is whether we believe it is worth initially spending a percentage of our tax dollars to guarantee our safety
On the other side of the coin the enormous expense of zero tolerance in money and manpower and prisons actually makes policing worse. Either we have to throw limitless money at doubling the number of officers (it may be almost impossible to recruit and train so many even if we could afford it). Or we may have to divert officers away from investigations and serious crime prevention in order to put them back on the pavement. Ironically, aggressive policing may thus actually reduce Police presence with time “off the street” due to arrest procedure, file preparation and subsequent Court time. The removal of investigators reduces detection of important crimes in return for catching the offenders at the very lower end of the criminal offending scale. Even when reported crime rates drop this does not prove that zero tolerance achieves anything because it is corporate crime, large scale drug dealing that is ignored and these largely go unreported.. Arrest and subsequent convictions may make it more difficult for the arrested and convicted subject to find future employment and therefore fuel the cycle. More so if the arrest and conviction has been for a very minor offence.
4 Zero Tolerance can improve the standard of policing. It reduces racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal views. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals.
The other side to this argument is that in reality Zero Tolerance gives the police almost limitless power in lower socio-economic communities. They are able to stop and search, and harass individuals constantly. Everyone who carries cannabis cannot be arrested so in reality certain vulnerable groups, usually ethnic minorities, are targeted and labelled as criminals. New York saw a vast growth in complaints over police racism and harassment after zero tolerance. This is a very serious issue and is linked to loss trust by the public in the Police.
Should the New Zealand Police adopt the Policy?
If looking from a purely self-seeking point of view and without taking into account the Courts and Corrections systems the New Zealand Police would appear at first glance to be in a position structurally (as previously discussed) to adopt Zero Tolerance Policing, however, the organisation is not confined to one large city and crime rates differ widely from one area to another. New Zealand’s population is demographically spread, with about two thirds of the population living in an urban or larger city environments. The balance being very thinly spread throughout both islands in small rural communities that are often serviced by one Police Officer and certainly not Policed proactively 24 hours a day 7 days a week. These country Police Officers can at times move into the Community Service Model of Policing (Police Organisation and Management 1990, Roberg & Kuykendall). This demographic split gives rise to several concerns if a Zero Tolerance based policy was introduced unilaterally throughout the New Zealand Police.
Firstly – As Zero Tolerance is an aggressive Policing Tactic it follows that often aggression is often met with aggression. The Police Officer working on their own in a small rural community which already enjoys a low crime rate would could well become alienated from their community. A good deal of Police work depends on the interpersonal skills of the Officer. Reliance on force rather than diplomacy may lead these skills to atrophy. A drag net approach to crime reduction by Zero Tolerance Policing with the Police Officer have little of no discretion may eventually lead to the unique relationship of trust between the Police Officer and the community to be reduced, thus reducing the effectiveness of the Police Officer.
The position of Officer safety should also be considered. The larger urban areas officer numbers may be such that aggressive tactics could be used with relative safety, however, in a small community the Police Officer often relies on the Public for his or her “backup”. The alienation affect previously discussed would surely reduce any assistance to a point management would need to place extra staff at the small stations so their Zero Tolerance Policy could be executed safely. This same staffing issues would eventually filter through to larger Urban areas as the policy tied up more and more officers with arrests.
Secondly In a large city or urban area at what point do you set the threshold for arrest. The chances of an officer discovering an offence is far higher than in the rural areas. Do you set the bar by directing that the smallest offence be dealt with or mid range offences? Do you deal with Bay-Law breaches and parking matters? How do you have all officers following the same set of instructions to the level. (This vexatious problem is not confined to Urban areas) In Zero Tolerance Policing there is still a subjective element in the test for offending – when an officer sees a small crime does it meet his or her threshold for arrest as it may not meet their fellow officers threshold.
Thirdly There is the full range of socio-economic groups within a large urban area. Whereas in the rural local communities tend to blend in with one another more. Cities clearly have their “upper class” area and their “slum areas”. It would be of concern if a blanket approach to Zero Tolerance Policing was taken throughout the whole city when in some areas there is clearly no crime problem. Does this then lead to the question of class and race discrimination? Some would say yes? It may be that Zero Tolerance is well suited as a short term tactic in areas of High Crime and Disorder, but identification of those areas would come from some careful analysis. At this point the New Zealand Police may then be using a style of Policing that could be described as a blend of Legalistic – Professional and Rational-Contingency if the Zero Tolerance Policy was adopted.
SUMMARY
Zero Tolerance Policing is a complex topic witch revolves around the argument that unrestrained petty crime creates an impression that no one cares and leads to more crime. Policing practitioners have their discretion removed and are forced to deal with the smallest of matters. There are positives to the Zero Tolerance Policy such as providing a powerful deterrent by having more Police on the ground, it clearly reduces small scale offending, deterrence reduces the total number of crimes Police are forced to investigate and it can improve the standard of Policing. The negative side to it is there can be a trickle down effect of high volumes of people being loaded into the Justice system, it tends to target minor offenders rather than the top end offending. It is at direct odd with some philosophies that are in statute, it can be very costly both in financial and human terms and it may result in discriminatory behaviour and community alienation.
Certainly the New Zealand Police have the ability to introduce it but sustaining Zero Tolerance may be difficult both financially and in community relationship terms as its long term effect and may well be detrimental to the Police / Community relationship. Zero Tolerance Policing may well be better utilised as a short term tactic to address a particular symptom of a problem rather than attempting to use it as a long term fix for a problem.
REFERENCES
