What Is The Impact Of Zero Tolerance Policies

Zero-tolerance policies impacted the policies of policing as a whole, including Stop, Question and Frisk. It’s a central issue that disguised itself in various forms and is implemented into the Criminal Justice System and in public schools. The notion is to tackle petty crimes in order to prevent more serious ones. Many law-abiding individuals who committed a minor infarction are left with court summons, and possibly arrest warrants. Despite people being summoned for minor offenses, including littering, drinking in public, and other petty crimes, if they forget to attend their court date, the end result is being arrested and charged (Editorial Board, 2017). New Yorkers are being penalized for non-violent misdemeanors and treated like criminals,
Zero-tolerance policing even strengthened the Nation’s War on Drugs, where many individuals are being convicted for drug possession, including marijuana. Strict policing policies deeply affect minorities, in several ways including, incarceration, summons, and racial profiling. The original intention was to improve the crime rate of the city and control social disorder, such as abandoned property, graffiti, broken windows, and other disorders. New York City was known as a dangerous city in prior to the 2000’s, it was riddled with crime and had little social control. In detail, in 1990 the crime rate was at about 527,257, due to such a high crime rate, policies were implemented to significantly reduce crime (NYPD Crime Data Warehouse, 2014). Overtime, the policing strategy became more selective on what crimes to be strict on, such as misdemeanors. Zero-tolerance policies then began to be applied into Stop, Question and Frisk. Likewise, the policies were reshaped into effecting discipline in New York public schools. School policy is stricter on children when dealing with misdemeanors, in which the child is punished either through suspension or
Most areas the policy targets are neighborhoods with an allegedly high crime rate, which mostly minorities and immigrants live in. Due to oppression in America, there is little opportunity for social mobility, resulting in specific groups limited on locations to live in. For example, The 1949 Housing Act was subtly intended to zone minorities and immigrants into certain areas. To illustrate, the policy focused on removing blight and slum in buildings in order to demolish and build public housing (Class notes 4/3/17). The environment that fit into the definition of “blight” and “slum”, were predominantly buildings inhabitant of immigrants and minorities. Despite the policy seeming to improve the city environment, the demographic that were deeply affected by this were the poor and minorities. Through policies that favored segregation of race, the racial divide increased. The city’s interest of those in power believed the city was riddled with non-American groups that were bringing in crime and destroying the American culture, so they favored a separation of race. Overtime, the city’s built environment became perceived as unappealing and uninhabitable. Mayor Giuliani felt the city was dangerous and needed to be controlled. The concept of public disorder, especially in neighborhoods where immigrants and minorities live in, was the idea of lack of order in