Clarifying Zero Tolerance
| Author | Frank Knox |
| Published date | 01 November 2001 |
| Date | 01 November 2001 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X0107400403 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
FRANK KNOX
CLARIFYING ZERO TOLERANCE
Some Key Questions
There are not many debates and commentaries on policing which do
not bring in a reference to zero tolerance, with specific reference to
New York since the early 1990s. However, many important questions
remain unanswered and indeed, to the author's knowledge, unasked.
One question which should immediately arise concerns police
resources. Since it involves more intensive policing, at least of certain
districts, does this mean that there is an increase in total police
spending and personnel, and if so, how much? If not, presumably it
involves withdrawal of police resources from other areas, functional or
geographic - which ones? As far as the United States is concerned, for
an answer to the questions about police spending and personnel it is not
necessary to look further than the standard official compendium, the
annual 'Statistical Abstract of the United States', which gives these
figures and also crime rates for states and major cities.
The central thesis of zero tolerance (henceforth ZT) is that dealing
effectively with minor crime, also known as 'crimes of incivility' or
'quality-of-life' crime, brings about a reduction in major crime. If so, it
is obviously highly cost-effective. When we get away from the six
major crimes: homicide, serious assault, rape, robbery, burglary, seri-
ous theft and serious fraud, there is always a long list of minor crimes
which the police could tackle. Squeegee merchants, 'panhandling'
(aggressive begging), drug-dealing, vandalism, fare-dodging on the
subway, street prostitution and street drinking figure prominently in
accounts of the New York achievement. There are many others which
could be tackled: various kinds of disorder and threatening behaviour
(which needs to be broken down by age and number of participants,
location, and so on), noise (which also needs to be broken down by
type and location), litter, dangerous cycling and skateboarding, minor
vehicle offences, and pedestrian offences, such as ignoring crossings,
crossing against the lights, and so on. Which major crimes and which
minor ones are related, and how does the link operate?
In tackling crime, police action can never be more than the start of
the process. What happens to the offenders after they are arrested or
charged is a matter for the courts. Data on what penalties are imposed
is lacking in most accounts of ZT in New York. Policing in the USA is
mainly the province of the lowest tier of government, cities and
counties, while the states have more say in the courts. A good indication
of the relative importance of the three levels of government is their
proportion of total spending. Local governments make up 70% of
spending on police and states about 10%; local governments have only
45% of court spending, states 30% (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999).
292 The Police Journal, Volume 74 (2001)
To continue reading
Request your trial