Should we adopt Zero Tollerance to reduce crime ?

[gmloki]

Prompted by one of the popular day time radio phone in shows the other day, I wonder should England (Inc. Wales & Scotland) adopt a zero tollerance policy to all crime. I say this in light of the current media coverage of prison over crowding. Also after having a look at The Home Office webby the stats show a steady crime rate with no significant reduction overall. Albeit some are up and some are down. For example recorded violent crime is up from 600,00 incidents to just over 1.2million from 1999-2005. Yet Burglary is down from 700,000 to 400,00 over the same period.

So is enough being done to tackle crime. Ok that's fairly rhetorical as we would say in an ideal society there would be no crime. However there appears to be more anti social crime. More litter, more crimes associated with alcohol and drug abuse. Would Zero Tollerance be an effective way to stop anti social crime and would it stop some of the other more serious crime in society as a result.

I've heard people argue that its a waste of Police time to stop people who litter or urinate in public and they should be solving more serious issues. However if thats what the law is and people step outside of it (no matter how small) then surely they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law to deter people in the future. Do I really want to take my son to the park on a Saturday morning and the play area be full of broken bottles and piles of vomit from the Friday night drunkards ? Maybe if low level crime was targeted then it would act as a deterent to criminals in general

Some good material to read on the issue, Fixing Broken Windows & Zero Tollerance

Edit: As much as we have introduced things like on the spot fines etc. I really don't think they are being an effective deterent

Thougts & Opinions ??

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, speaking as a foreigner not living in the E.W.S.I. area, i don't think police have the resources in any country for zero policy.

Just not enough manpower, time and capability to monitor all.

It's a fine idea, perhaps a bit risky in "abuse of police power" way, but all in all i don't think it's a realistic goal.

BUT as a policy, all crimes are crimes and SHOULD be punished if broken. Hell, i think people jaywalking should be fined, but they do it everyday.

 

[MYstIC G]

Pissing wouldn't be a problem if they had kept open the public toilets and fucking maintained them.

 

[Insane]

Are you willing to pay more taxes to employ more Police Officers to walk the streets to enforce the law?

What about the extra Judges and court staff needed to handle the influx of new offenders?

How about the extra Probation Officers (and Community Services Officers) needed to handle with all the Community Service Orders being handed out by the Judges for the offenders?

Fines are handy, you dont need to employ extra people to handle them, which means you wont have to pay more taxes in the long run.

they also stop first-time offenders most of the time, its the re-offenders which gives you the problems

How many people here have gotten a parking ticket (or speeding fine) and made you more wary of doing it again?

 

[Utini]

Thats not to mention the 'deterrent' or 'punishment' aspects, which seem to be completely alien these days, its all 'rehabilitation', which in practice means a cushy time, and the sort of attitude where people think "sod it, i probably wont be caught, even if i do, i'll only get 6 months, and be out in about a week, in the mean time i get to bash whoever i want and steal their phone".
People say tough sentencing doesn't work? Its not as if we've properly tried, instead of paying for prisoner jollies. You'd certainly think twice if you were going to be in a bare cell for 3 years, as opposed to the curry affair for a few weeks. I conceed there is a fair proportion of criminals that it wont deter, but then im not sure that a load would in those cases, so if theyre going to do it anyway, i dont see why they shouldnt be locked up.
And those numbers are always utter tosh (whether it supports my point or not), you can always make numbers say what you want depending on how you use them, moving boundaries/definitions and such.
Its a personal pet hate, at the small end being little scrotes going round thinking they can beat people up or abuse them and suchlike, and unfortunately theyre probably right in the current system.

 

[Skyler]

Pissing wouldn't be a problem if they had kept open the public toilets and fucking maintained them.

The fact you said that made me grin.

Simply because a week or so ago I think I mentioned you and Chet loved Cottaging and now you want the public toilets back!

heh..

Anyway, the fact violent crime and street crime forever rises is cause for concern since that is far more likely to effect people than things like murders or rapes.

When I see adverts for iPods and they are clipped to the front of peoples jackets I just think "you've never been on a real city street before have you" "it's going to get stolen quicker than you can say I love Steve Jobs".

An increasing number of people don't feel safe walking down the streets anymore, that has to be one of the worst things about our country right now. When I leave the house now I don't ask myself "what do I need/want?" I ask myself "what am I prepared to lose?".

I am sure I am a more extreme case for this, but I think this kind of thing is on the increase. I don't know anybody that has been murdered or raped or anywhere near any of that. I do know people that have been burgled, stabbed, mugged, assaulted, abused by random people.

The Home Office is almost saying commit more crimes, you're never more likely to walk free than now, do all you can.

Most of these criminal types find the law a joke, especially those bastard kids like the ones bugging Damini/Kenny all the time.

 

[tris-]

Most of these criminal types find the law a joke, especially those bastard kids like the ones bugging Damini/Kenny all the time.

those fuckers are the worst. they know they are pretty much immune from anything and everything so they run around causing fucking havoc. i feel it would be harder for an innocent person to get physical with a kid to defend them selves. in the sense that the person will most likely be charged with assault or something.

ASBOs seem like a waste of time too. was reading a notice pinned up about some bloke whos got one and to report him if you see him doing certain things.

heres 2 of the conditions -

cannot go on someones property without permission
cannot tamper with other vehicles

well no fucking shit judge, i didnt think anyone could really do these things :\

 

[Damini]

I like the fact that you can commit crimes, and get away without being chased as long as you are on a moped without a helmet. It's like the ASBO version of god mode. I wonder if this could also extend to car chases, if you let them know you're not wearing a seat belt?

I do think zero tolerance would work. I think that kids naturally push the boundaries, and the way things are now there are pretty much no boundaries at all until you practically kill someone. Graffiti? Shrug. Car theft? Never investigated. Breaking into garages? Just add into statistics. Drugs? Turn a blind eye. Stabbing people? File it under assault. By the time the system even notices these kids, they are a dab hand at breaking the law, which I think is as much a pity for the kids as it is for us poor shits that have to put up with the fall out. People aren't inherently civilised, it's living within the rules and expectations of a civilisation that makes us that way, and yet we expect kids to turn out good without ever once correcting their behaviour until it's so outlandish that it can no longer be ignored.

 

[Tom]

I think when politicians interfere with the criminal justice system and prevent the use of discretion, the rule of law suffers.

The best way IMO to make a serious dent in crime figures is to build more prisons. Not just to lock more people up, but so that drug addicts can be kept on stable drug rehabilitation schemes and not be moved around every couple of months due to lack of space and facilities. This IMO is the main reason why prison isn't having the effect that it should.

I also think that for trivial crimes involving a stay in prison, we should be using chain-gangs to clean the streets and paint fences, and clean graffiti. And they should wear pink suits.

 

[Ormorof]

I also think that for trivial crimes involving a stay in prison, we should be using chain-gangs to clean the streets and paint fences, and clean graffiti. And they should wear pink suits.

they already do that here in hull, the prisoners wear pink jump suits and pick up litter down by the docks

 

[Skyler]

I am in favour of more prisons and I can't understand why the prison service is so under budget if we have such a lack of prison space.

Personally I feel like if I did commit a serious crime, or even something labelled not so serious lately like assault or burglary that I would end up in prison, or I've always been brought up to think that - you break the law, you go to jail.

Now it's more like, you break the law - you get an eletronic tag and can keep the mobile phone you stabbed someone for.

Having good sentences is only part of the solution though, since it's no good having great sentences and prison time for criminals when they aren't getting caught.

There is very little respect for other human beings around on the streets, you can tell almost instantly who might give you trouble and who wont.

The only real powers over those annoying kids are the parents, and many of them don't really care or give them too much freedom so they don't help.

 

[JBP|]

My opinions haven't changed since this was last talked about really.

However i do now think that some sort of quiz called "Hang 'em high" shown just before the weeks lottery numbers might draw a decent sized audience.




Edit My previous opinion can be found here..
https://forums.freddyshouse.com/showthread.php?p=2974670#post2974670

 

[Wij]

People say prisons don't work. Well they do while they're in there. Three years of not burgling pensioners' houses is worth it. If they re-offend stick 'em back in. It's not the same for everyone but a small number of persistent offenders account for a huge number of crimes and the associated police time (filling in forms about the crime.) If these hardcore crims were thrown back inside every time they re-offend for a good few years we'd all be a lot happier and wealthier. Except the crim obviously

This was quite a funny read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wasting-Pol...f=pd_ka_1/026-0596436-2158025?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[DaGaffer]

Legalise all drugs. 90% of crime would disappear overnight.

 

[throdgrain]

Empower people with the right to self-defence. See personal crime figures drop.

 

[DaGaffer]

Empower people with the right to self-defence. See personal crime figures drop.

Unfortunately that's simply not true. You only have to look at countries where you do have more rights to self-defence to see that. I'm not saying Britain has it right on self-defence, but while have more rights to defend myself would make me more comfortable, its not going to stop some junkie from breaking into my house to nick my DVD player; the American experience proves that.

 

[Ch3tan]

Empower people with the right to self-defence. See personal crime figures drop.

I see that causing more violent crimes, and more armed muggings.

 

[tris-]

Legalise all drugs. 90% of crime would disappear overnight.

whys that? evey drug is piss easy to get a hold of as it is and will cost less than the price the government would whack on it.

 

[Skyler]

Empower people with the right to self-defence. See personal crime figures drop.

More violence wont make things better for everyone.

Society should be a place where you can walk down the street minding your own business and not have people try and hurt you or steal your posessions, a place where you can live in peace at home and not have someone invade your privacy to steal your posessions.

If you want trouble and start a fight then you more likely deserve what you get, but if you mind your own business and stay passive you should be left alone.

Giving people the power to hurt their assailants legally will breed all manner of problems and make society more violent and more aggressive.

 

[throdgrain]

No it wont, it will make society more defensive, possibly.
At the moment however, you have not much ability for self defence at all.

 

[rynnor]

You need to build more prisons before you can really get tough on crime.

 

[Mofo8]

Two word that could sort out all the problems: Judge Dredd

 

[Tom]

Throddy has it right. Stop using the USA as an example, because they primarily have a right to bear arms - thats very different from having the right to twat somebody over the head with a golf bat.

Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, all countries with lots of guns and not much gun crime. Except in Sweden where they shoot speed cameras, which is good.

 

[throdgrain]

Most places has the right to gun ownership and the right to defend yourself. Except here.

And you've all been suckered down the line that by banning legal ownership of guns will somehow stop the bad guys from having then. "Im not armed, so please dont hurt me!"

Either way, how about the criminals DONT have guns? How about, just lets say, a big old bad pyscopath breaks into your home. Beats you up (sorry, of course that wont happen to any of you lot because your so tough right?) , then locks you in the wardrobe and rapes your wife. Keeps you both there for a day or two, then fucks off when he gets bored.

What can you do? You can cry to the police mates, thats what you can do, and hope that they can find the bad guy. And hope that if they do, theres enough space in the prisons for him to go. And all the time you're feeling so bad arnt you, because you just couldnt stand up to the bloke, because he was bigger than you, and a nutter anyway, and now you life, both you lives are ruined.

So, according to you lots ideas, justice is decided on how good you are at fighting is it? If the victim was a vblack belt at karate it would have been ok yeah?

Only the avarage bloke ISNT a black belt at karate is he? Hes just a bloke, going to work, coming home, doing his stuff. Typing messages on internet forums.

So he isnt allowed to defend himself by you lots' reckoning, he just has to take it up the arse dont he?
If he had a pistol under the bed, legally held, this fictitous computer nerd,
he could have defended himself, and his wife, and how would society have suffered?

Not at all, thats how. One dead looney, no prison costs. All good.

Oh, by the way. When afore-mentioned nutter breaks into my house, Ive a chance, not a very big chance, of getting my shotty out of the safe and blowing the fuckers head off. And doing years inside too I expect. But Ill try, I really will.

What will you do?

 

[DaGaffer]

whys that? evey drug is piss easy to get a hold of as it is and will cost less than the price the government would whack on it.

Loads of reasons;

1. Most organised crime is drug-related. Take away organised crime's major source of revenue and you'll have a knock-on effect on other areas like people trafficking and prostitution. A kilo of coke costs $1000 when its sold in South America, by the time it arrives in the UK it costs $30,000. If it was being sold legally, it would cost $1500 by the time it arrived at your local branch of Boots. Even if the government taxed it at cigarette levels, it would still only cost $7500, and so the legal route would effectively kill the illegal market.

2. As you've said yourself, every drug is piss easy to get hold of, so loads of people are doing drugs, and millions are people are effectively being criminalised; and you're never going to stop it. Prohibition doesn't work, it just makes money for the bad guys. And most people who take drugs aren't addicts; for every heavy user there are a hundred, a thousand, dropping an E at the weekend or doing a line of coke every now and then.

3. A large proportion of petty crime is drug related; 75% of all heavy crack and heroin users admit to commiting crimes to fund their habits. However, because their drug use is illegal, the buyers of their stolen goods are often part of the same network as their dealers; no dealers, a reduced market for stolen goods, and probably a reduced need, given the pricing issue highlighted in point 1.

4. Quality control. Legalised drugs would be far less likely to kill people. People will always die from drugs overdoses, get past the emotional aspect and accept it. Think of it as evolution in action.

5. Tax. The government would make so much fucking tax revenue from this they could probably put a policeman on every street corner, build a thousand new hospitals and cut income tax.

6. Acceptance. The "War on Drugs" will never be won; get over it, and control it.

 

[DaGaffer]

Throddy has it right. Stop using the USA as an example, because they primarily have a right to bear arms - thats very different from having the right to twat somebody over the head with a golf bat.

Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, all countries with lots of guns and not much gun crime. Except in Sweden where they shoot speed cameras, which is good.

You do have the right to twat someone over the head with a *ahem* "golf bat". So long as you can prove it was reasonable force.

 

[Calaen]

Most places has the right to gun ownership and the right to defend yourself. Except here.

And you've all been suckered down the line that by banning legal ownership of guns will somehow stop the bad guys from having then. "Im not armed, so please dont hurt me!"

Either way, how about the criminals DONT have guns? How about, just lets say, a big old bad pyscopath breaks into your home. Beats you up (sorry, of course that wont happen to any of you lot because your so tough right?) , then locks you in the wardrobe and rapes your wife. Keeps you both there for a day or two, then fucks off when he gets bored.

What can you do? You can cry to the police mates, thats what you can do, and hope that they can find the bad guy. And hope that if they do, theres enough space in the prisons for him to go. And all the time you're feeling so bad arnt you, because you just couldnt stand up to the bloke, because he was bigger than you, and a nutter anyway, and now you life, both you lives are ruined.

So, according to you lots ideas, justice is decided on how good you are at fighting is it? If the victim was a vblack belt at karate it would have been ok yeah?

Only the avarage bloke ISNT a black belt at karate is he? Hes just a bloke, going to work, coming home, doing his stuff. Typing messages on internet forums.

So he isnt allowed to defend himself by you lots' reckoning, he just has to take it up the arse dont he?
If he had a pistol under the bed, legally held, this fictitous computer nerd,
he could have defended himself, and his wife, and how would society have suffered?

Not at all, thats how. One dead looney, no prison costs. All good.

Oh, by the way. When afore-mentioned nutter breaks into my house, Ive a chance, not a very big chance, of getting my shotty out of the safe and blowing the fuckers head off. And doing years inside too I expect. But Ill try, I really will.

What will you do?

While I see your point, it does not work like that, you end up getting the so called nerds as you put it that wouldnt stand up to anything, possibly having a weapon which more times than not will be taken from them and used against them.

The only way to make people really pay for crime and stop is to adopt the approach of the saudi's cut the fuckers limbs off let people know they are scum.

However that would go against everything. Cause we like to moan about them in the middle east being prehistoric having shit beliefs andd stuff. We could take a leaf out of their book for punishment. no it does not stop crime but atleast after you have killed them you dont need to pay taxes to give them a life of luxury.

 

[Sharma]

Loads of reasons;

1. Most organised crime is drug-related. Take away organised crime's major source of revenue and you'll have a knock-on effect on other areas like people trafficking and prostitution. A kilo of coke costs $1000 when its sold in South America, by the time it arrives in the UK it costs $30,000. If it was being sold legally, it would cost $1500 by the time it arrived at your local branch of Boots. Even if the government taxed it at cigarette levels, it would still only cost $7500, and so the legal route would effectively kill the illegal market.

2. As you've said yourself, every drug is piss easy to get hold of, so loads of people are doing drugs, and millions are people are effectively being criminalised; and you're never going to stop it. Prohibition doesn't work, it just makes money for the bad guys. And most people who take drugs aren't addicts; for every heavy user there are a hundred, a thousand, dropping an E at the weekend or doing a line of coke every now and then.

3. A large proportion of petty crime is drug related; 75% of all heavy crack and heroin users admit to commiting crimes to fund their habits. However, because their drug use is illegal, the buyers of their stolen goods are often part of the same network as their dealers; no dealers, a reduced market for stolen goods, and probably a reduced need, given the pricing issue highlighted in point 1.

4. Quality control. Legalised drugs would be far less likely to kill people. People will always die from drugs overdoses, get past the emotional aspect and accept it. Think of it as evolution in action.

5. Tax. The government would make so much fucking tax revenue from this they could probably put a policeman on every street corner, build a thousand new hospitals and cut income tax.

6. Acceptance. The "War on Drugs" will never be won; get over it, and control it.

As I say it often, this would make sense unfortunately, the idiots in control of this country LOVE doing things the hard way and LOVE to make it out that we're a non-barbaric nation, hence why the national stance is against the death penalty and such.

Unfortunately the main thing is, the polticians can't see past the ends of their own fucking noses and wallets and see the most obvious solutions staring at them in the face, or rather they can but they'd much rather screw the nation over as a whole so they can keep their massively over-paid salaries and huge pensions.

 

[throdgrain]

Cal, it does work like that. A gun is a great leveller. You can big as big as you like, but a .45 cal still puts you on your arse.
It should be everyones right to defend themselves.

 

[Tom]

You do have the right to twat someone over the head with a *ahem* "golf bat". So long as you can prove it was reasonable force.

I think its quite reasonable to hit someone with a golf bat if they break into my house. Running away or not.

*TWAT*

One dead burglar. Take that.