Zero Tolerance

Zero Tolerance

Introduction

The zero tolerance policy is imposed so that the any undesirable conduct can be eliminated from the society. A predetermined punishment is set for such conduct and the punishment cannot be reduced or waived by any person. Despite the main objective of such policies to reduce undesirable conduct, the policy has received severe criticism from various groups (Tyler, 2011, 254-266). The objective of this paper is to analyze this policy and determine whether it is effective.

Zero Tolerance Policy

The United States is not the only country to have such a policy in place. Countries such as Sweden, Japan, Finland, Germany, Belgium, and several other also have such policies that are aimed at controlling rash driving and driving under influence, the use and transportation of drugs and other illegal substances, violence, and several other things that pose a harm to the society. This policy is also being implemented in schools. As it is becoming increasingly difficult to control crimes and undesirable actions, the number of countries implementing such policies is on the rise. (Grant, 2010, 756-770).

Creation of the Policy

This term “Zero Tolerance” was first used in 1994 with the idea traced back to the Safe and Clean Neighborhoods Act that was approved in New Jersey. The idea behind this act was to punish anyone involved in activities that could trigger a series of undesirable events. For instance, if a person drops trash in a particular corner of the city, people would eventually begging doing the same and when the garbage accumulates, people would then begin to dump all their trash for it to be picked up. Hence, the initial of such undesirable behavior can be traced back to the person who dropped the first piece of garbage. Such people should be punished for initiating undesired events. Similarly, if a house has a few broken windows, vandals would then begin to break more windows and eventually, it the house is unoccupied, it can become squatters. In such cases, the owner of the house is responsible since he left the windows unfixed which ultimately led to the events that followed (Grant, 2010, 756-770).

The implementation of this policy in school has led to severe concerns as students are receiving unnecessary punishments. The number of bullying cases is also increasing instead of decreasing. This shows that this policy is quite ineffective in schools and at the same time it is leading to an increase in ...