Zero Tolerance ?

Nemici

When I used to live in Holland I was arrested for picking a rose out of somebodys garden. They gave me a choice to go and apologise or face a charge. I chose to apologise.

My point is that even with relaxed drug and alcohol laws Holland has a low violent crime rate because of their constant presence and low tolerance for civil disobedience.

Do you think that if Irish cops used this policy (also adopted by former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani) would the random violence in Dublin city stop ?

MiCr0

will it solve random violence - nope
will it improve things anyhow - yep

I would like nothing more that if every one who litters had to pay a €10 fine, ditto for anyone smoking on buses.

how long do you think it would take to improve the litter problem?

afai can see it - too many things are just left to slide in Ireland.

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by MiCr0
I would like nothing more that if every one who litters had to pay a €10 fine, ditto for anyone smoking on buses.

AFAIK it's a €50 fine and has been for some time now.

kaimera

The Star had an interesting read along those lines.

Cant think o the name of the author o the piece but tis on the editoral page anyway [no funni stuff about it being the editor]

He suggested 5 year min term for violence against old people,

5 years for un-provoked attacks

BEFORE parole is even considered.

after that, 10 years added to whats left of the original sentence if offence if committed again.

Personally, I'd love to see zero tolerence.

There is too many scumbags out there who think they're above everybody else.

MiCr0

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
AFAIK it's a €50 fine and has been for some time now.

how many people have you ever seen fined?

davej

The problem as I see it is that zero tolerance can often be used as an excuse for those in power to vent their prejudicial "justice" on whatever minority they happen to dislike. For example, some Garda who doesn't like immigrants can "do them" for jay walking and claim that he's only following standard policy. He'll probably still manage to turn a blind eye to all sorts of shenanigans by "the irish lads who are just havin' a laugh".

(also adopted by former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani)

Rudy Giuliani was despised by many black communities for what was seen as a campaign against them. Of course since sept 11th he could do no wrong.

davej

Kell

I dont think zero tolerance would be effected by the police to be honest. I am in favour of it, however with zero tolerance that was supposed to have been effected in relation to driving offenses sliding then the cops are likely to come up with the same lame ass excuse "Not enough resources" to get out of doing their job.

The courts here are part of the problem too. There is no parity in the terms of the sentences given out for the same crime. The whole length of term thing needs to be standardised I think before the cops will take any interest in doing their job to the best of their ability. I see their point though. Would you bust your ass arresting someone, then following up, appearing in court to have some antiquity of a judge give them a three month suspended sentence for punching one of your colleagues? Me neither.

I agree that Joe public needs to have a better appreciation of the fact that if he crosses the line he'll get fúcked for it. Too many people are secure in the sense that if they step out of line the penalty will be so little that the ends justify the means.

K-

Xterminator

Zero tolerance properly enforced would improve the quality of life for everyone.
And while in theory everyone likes the sound of it, very few poeple actually are prepared to pay the price..

For instance, our prisons are full now! To cope with the huge increases that would result from full sentances actually being enforced on violent criminals, we would have to build new prisons, and increase the pay for prison guards so the new vacancies would be filled, (as its hard enought to recruit them under current pay and conditions). We would have overhaul the judicial system, so that cases are heard quicker, and less criminals offend while on bail. We'd need new courthouses, new judges etc.

This might mean an increase in income tax. But any govenment which proposed such a measure would never be elected by the very electorate that complains about the high level of crime.

The one thing that will never change is the oirish attitude thats its ok to break the rules as long as your not caught!
Its ok to claim the dole, and do a nixer, It's ok to avoid paying taxes.
And then when people are caught, there always an apologist waiting to defend them. Recently there was an article in the paper about a family who was to be deported, because they claimed asylum falsly, and eventually were found out.
And of course the paper was filled with people saying, as sure their lovely poeple, and the kids have settled, etc, so we should make an exception for them.
But nowhere did it state that they were being subsidised by the state, commiting fraud, and robbing all taxpayers etc.

X

Nemici

I think maybe that the cops need to seem more attractive to people looking for careers,( but maybe the police force is already full to capacity within their budget) ??

the english police force seems to have invested a lot of money in adverts and community policing.

The no tolerance attitude to our roads seems to have been a huge sucess in so far as road deaths are down a huge percentage. I suppose it would be a lot harder to clamp down on crime when sentences have to be imposed rather than fines and penalty points etc but as xterminator said this will raise income tax.

I would rather pay a few quid more out of my pay to have a few more cops on the street then get the sh*t knocked out of me on my way home from the pub !

davej

I think some of you guys have missed the point about what zero tolerance is about: It's about human conditioning.

It's a bit like turning society into a secondary school: In many schools, for example, there are very strict rules on uniforms. If you think about it it's ridiculous, getting into trouble for not wearing a tie or whatever! But the idea behind it is that what's considered acceptable behaviour in society is a relative concept; if a big deal is made about someone not adhering to the school dress code, it means the students get so caught up with it that they begin to "acclimatize" to the new level of strictness and soon forget about doing more serious things. A similar thing happens in boot camps.

The fact that you can get into trouble for picking flowers means that in the long term you won't even contemplate doing something more serious.

davej

bonkey

Originally posted by Nemici
My point is that even with relaxed drug and alcohol laws Holland has a low violent crime rate because of their constant presence and low tolerance for civil disobedience.

Actually, I'm not sure that you can arrtibute the crime rate to the policing in that way. Its true that it helps, but it may not be true to say that just because you have both, one is a result of the other.

Is there anything to show that the low crime rate came about by implementing such a policing method?

jc

Kell

Originally posted by Nemici
The no tolerance attitude to our roads seems to have been a huge sucess in so far as road deaths are down a huge percentage.

According to quotes in papers and on the news, a lot of Gardai have stated that they will not bother to enforce penalty points for any traffic offenses because there are no facilities in place i.e. computers to process the points on peoples licenses and it involves too much paperwork. I heard this on the news ages ago and again recently, which a lot believe will prompt people to go back to their bad habits safe in the knowledge they'll get away with it.

K-

Biffa Bacon

Why is zero tolerance in any way controversial? Zero tolerance just means that the law is enforced. Why should the law not be enforced?

seamus

Zero Tolerance is a useful idea, but as Xterminator said, it would require an overhaul on our entire system. What would be the point in arresting every little scumbag in sight, when they'll just be set free 12 hours later, like they are now?

On the flipside, the complete overhaul required for Zero Tolerance to work would in effect negate the need for Zero Tolerance. Our court system needs an overhaul. Our entire justice system needs an overhaul. IMO, some major points are:-
People's ability to defend themselves - At what point does self-defence become excessive force? IMO, any injury sustained in the course of carrying out a crime is the fault of the perpetrator, unless the injury results in death, brain damage, or where it was needlessly inflicted by a Garda. If someone attacks me, I will a) break their leg or b) hit them on the head with something, in order to ensure their inability to continue the attack.

Criminals lack of fear - Many criminals, especially younger perps, know that even if they are caught, they'll be back out on the streets in no time. And after that, the court system is so clogged, it'll be months before they have to deal with it. Some of them are so complacent it's staggering. We take calls for a few court solicitors, and far and away the most frequent calls are scumbags or their mothers ringing up to enquire as to their court case the next day - when and where it's on. I mean, to not even give a **** as to a pending court case just shows something beyond complacence. I don't know if there's a word for it.

Red Tape - Paperwork in the Gardai wastes so much time it's unbelievable. As well as that, top-level Gardai are constantly at odds with Government officials. Surely there should be weekly meetings to discuss, agree on and implement plans for the justice system. There should also be a representative council (of the government & Gardai) to vote on issues. The Minister for justice has too much power to make large changes, and conversely, the Garda leadership has too much power to resist those changes.

I would also like to see banning of parole for all people with previous offences. Also an increase in sentence for each subsequent offence. For example, if someone has two previous convictions and spent 3 and 5 years in prison for them, then the length of the third sentence should be 8 years (3 + 5) plus whatever for the third conviction. Repeat offenders would eventually clock up so much as to be jailed for life. IMO, this a more merciful version of the '3-strikes and out system'.
just my 20 cents

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by MiCr0
how many people have you ever seen fined?

That's my point - that there has been a severe fine for a long time and it hasn't made any difference. Kinda tame compared to the rest of the discussion tho

davej

Why is zero tolerance in any way controversial? Zero tolerance just means that the law is enforced. Why should the law not be enforced?

Because the apparatus necessary to enforce the law to it's full extent would require us to give up much of our civil liberties and it would cost a fortune.

The attitude of, "if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about", doesn't hold water in a scenario where everyone is under constant technological surveillance (which is the way things seem to be moving). It smacks of the soviet style police state where, "If you're a good communist you have nothing to worry about". While you might think that zero tolerance can help lead to a safe and peaceful society, the reality is that everyone becomes increasingly suspicious and distrusting of one another and more and more freedoms are slowly eroded as the ante is constantly upped. Society starts to become more closed and the individual is ever more isolated.

It might sound a bit over the top when at the moment we are talking about things like penalty point fines or litter laws. But the technology used to enforce these things (eg. video surveillance / gps systems etc.) can easily be used to enforce other things too.

Am I the only one on this thread who thinks zero tolerance is dangerous?

davej

Executive Steve

no mate i think zero tolerance is extremely dangerous....
any muppet who knows anything about human nature knows that to send a 17 year to five years of mandatory prison for mugging an old lady or robbing out of a shop is just going to breed a 22 year old sociopathic violent criminal who will have even less chance of pulling himself up by the bootstraps...
**** from toilet trash rags like the star dont seem to realise that shoving the scum behind bars or getting them off the streets isnt exactly an efficient or effective means of cutting crime figures,
new zealand may offer a glimmer of hope in alll of this where frustrated juvenile courts have begun to adopt maori traditional courts for young offenders, where the criminal and his victim[or victims since witnesses and the relatives of the victim are considered to have suffered under the crime as well] are brought together and the community explains to the criminal what he has done wrong and how his crime affected the community. since this sytem was adopted the proportion of juvenile offenders who re-offend and continue to commit similar offences plummet.
additionally the victims often describe the sessions as therapeutic, which is in sharp contrast to the experience of the average victim in an irish courtroom.

Kell

Originally posted by davej
to enforce the law to it's full extent would require us to give up much of our civil liberties

I dont quite follow you there dave. The law is the law is the law and as far as I can see, if you step outside of it you shoudl get fúcked for it. I dont see zero tolerance producing a Soviet style "Police State" at all nor Joe Pubic being suspicious of his neighbours enough to rat them out to the cops for something. Remember that eastern block style neo Nazi policing only worked because Joe Public was spying on Joe Public next door. I cant see the Irish apathetic state ever devolving to such a degree.

As Tyranny points out, if you lock up a 17 year old for five years you get a 22 year repear offender. But in the present system, you get 17 year old offender knowing full well he'll be out in a day and goes back to re-offending. Where's the difference? Personally I favour the Chinese treatment of criminals, but thats just my slant.

K-

Nemici

Personally I favour the Chinese treatment of criminals,

tell me more kell ?

Executive Steve

thats reactionary pricktalk for hang em and flog em or lock em up in a reeducation camp.... i suspect if you sent him/her to china he/she would be begging for mercy pretty damn quick....

---

....life of a repo mans ALWAYS intense

Imposter

Originally posted by davej
I think some of you guys have missed the point about what zero tolerance is about: It's about human conditioning.

This may be true but if it teaches people (in whatever way) respect for other people and their property why would any law abiding citizen be opposed to it?