Zero tolerance policy entails the enforcement of automatic punishments for law violations with aim of eliminating unwanted conduct. The policy was established after the advancement of the Broken Windows theory that push for law enforcement within neighborhoods to control disorderliness. The thought behind this was that if a window gets damaged and nothing is done about it, it will communicate that the damage is acceptable and thus enhancing the commission of this crime (McElreath 226). The policy was first implemented in the late 80’s and early 90’s in New York when the crime rate, mostly violent crime was soaring. The common offense perpetrators like vandals and drunkards netted by this policy were also found to be involved in other bigger offenses. The policy then achieved much by getting them off the streets while at the same time bringing the crime rates down (McElreath 226).
With the aforementioned being put in perspective, it is prudent to understand that the zero policy is integral in law enforcement. It should, however, be employed while taking into consideration locality and crime rates of the locality of interest. In my opinion, the policy should be applied in big cities with myriad of crime-related reports. It would be rational for the police in this case to boost the police effectiveness by employing zero-tolerance policy (Ross 11).
The Zero tolerance policy should be implemented to encourage crime deterrence within neighborhoods and communities. Through strict implementation of this policy, a strong message is sent to criminals that crime is not tolerated and heightened police presence within the locality. The harsh punishments will make criminals aware that there are far-reaching consequences if crime is detected. It also curbs “re-offending” as it catches criminals at the early stages of the crime cycle (Steele 32).
The policy should further be implemented as it reduces commission of minor crimes that otherwise are overlooked in different security settings. Zero tolerance policy sees to it police carry out numerous patrols that will manage to net minor offenders who may, for example, offer link to bigger criminal networks. For example, catching the drug dealers on the street will enable the police to get sufficient information on the big drug cartels.
Zero tolerance policy is integral in the rehabilitation role played by the law enforcement offices. The Police are empowered in their communal supervisory role complementing the prison system (Steele 32). In the case for juveniles under a custodial sentence, for instance, can be taken out from surroundings that may encourage criminality. The Police are vigil under this system to ensure cases of reoffending are avoided from released convicts and other elements under community service.
The policy further is essential in enhancing policing standards. It decreases the levels of racist treatment and corruption. This is because the police officers are not given the room to establish actions to take for individual cases. It also ensures the police are much more in contact with the community and its members (Ross 11). Under this framework incidents of shootouts and chases are not frequent.
An additional reason as to why the police should enforce zero-tolerance policy is the need to protect businesses and emboldening low-crime reputation for cities or communities. The increased vigilance by the Police ensures that a conducive business environment is enhanced which attracts investment and expatriate immigration (Steele 32). A secure vicinity will be ultimate for economic growth and investment in infrastructure within cities and towns. It is essential in the regeneration of urban environments that create more avenues for business for the dwellers and external investors.
Works Cited
McElreath, David. Introduction in Law Enforcement. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013. Print.
Ross, Jeffrey I. Policing Issues: Challenges and Controversies. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012. Print.
Steele, Philip. Crime and Punishment. London: Evans, 2003. Print.
