a
[vc_empty_space height="5px"]

Facebook

Twitter

[vc_empty_space height="21px"] Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:00 - 19:00

Our Opening Hours Mon. - Fri.

975.789.098

Call Us For Free Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
 

Zero Tolerance Policy and the Reduction of Crime

Hempeymeyers > Criminal Law  > Zero Tolerance Policy and the Reduction of Crime

Zero Tolerance Policy and the Reduction of Crime

Zero tolerance policy and the reduction of crime

A zero tolerance policy and the reduction of crime are benefits that every individual, business and government organization are keen to introduce in their nations to reduce crime. While zero tolerance seems to offer an obvious means to reduce crime, there are many disadvantages of zero tolerance policies. Hence, to ensure that the benefits of a zero tolerance policy do not outweigh the disadvantages, the following points are given:

This article examines three areas in which crimes are not reduced, while undergoing a reduction in crime statistics. It also looks at the advantages and disadvantages of zero tolerance, based on four points.

First, the disadvantages of the policy are the reduction of child abuse, alcohol consumption and abortion. Children and teens are mostly victims of these crimes, and drinking and drug abuse are important in reducing the incidence of crime in these groups.

Second, is the reduction of the number of alcohol consumption in the United States. With the federal alcohol ban in the United States, rates of crime are drastically reduced. However, there are instances where the increase in alcohol consumption in the United States is attributed to the availability of cheap foreign alcohol, and not to the increased availability of alcohol in the United States.

Third, is the reduction of the number of cigarette and drug related severe consequences for the remaining population. Though such dangers are not reduced by the policy, the remaining population is exposed to them. In fact, statistics show that crime continues to increase in these communities, despite the policy, as people fail to heed the stern warning signs of the new legislation.

Fourth, a zero tolerance policy may provide a number of potential solutions to crime, but only if the justice system is fair and efficient. In these circumstances, the policing system and the social life of the community cannot be considered fair and efficient.

Fifth, these advantages are only appealing when implemented by the state or a general public administration. Once these communities are considered independent of the state and have at least some local control, the advantages become less appealing.

Sixth, and lastly, the disadvantages of a zero tolerance policy are better addressed by an incentive-based program. It can be compared to a taxi service that provides free transportation. Though the service cannot eliminate the need for taxis, it does offer people an alternative in case of need.

Seventh, the drugs and alcohol are dangerous drugs and alcohol. Moreover, drug and alcohol poisoning can be a fatal cause of crime. Research has also shown that non-users of these dangerous drugs and alcohol are more likely to be victims of crimes.

Eighth, by giving the impression that crime is only a problem when committed by criminals, this can create a more negative image of crime. In the past, they made many helpful laws that were geared towards crime prevention and are therefore very similar to the main intention of this policy.

It is important to mention that in the United States, the police department has always been the chief instrument of crime prevention, and in Canada, crime prevention is more effective when there is collaboration between the local authorities and the municipal governments. This collaboration can take the form of a criminal offense code, which would limit the power of the police department to undertake certain police functions.

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.