NCJ Number
179596
Date Published
1999
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Zero-tolerance policing is discussed in terms of the various ways it is defined and practiced, its use in New York City; Hartlepool, England; Strathclyde, Scotland; and South Australia; and its resource and social implications for Australia.
Abstract
The most publicized approach to zero-tolerance policing involves strict, non-discretionary enforcement of laws regardless of the circumstances or the minor nature of the offense. Australia's Prime Minister was recently reported as advocating an analysis of the applicability of zero-tolerance policing in Australia, particularly in relation to drug law enforcement. Academics generally agree that the New York experience could not be applied in Australia with the same results due to differences in crime patterns. Advocates of zero tolerance emphasize that it does not necessarily equal automatic arrest for trivial offenses. Advocates of zero tolerance also claim that it reduces both minor and major crime and fear of crime and increases confidence in the police. Critics suggest that other police reforms and social and demographic factors have contributed to recent declines in crime rates in places it has been used. Critics also express concern over the aggressive, non-discretionary nature of policing often associated with zero tolerance, as well as its implications for police resources, court workloads, prison facilities, and police-community relations. Figures and 22 references