[AnklePocket]

"Zero Tolerance" is the term used by some towns/cities to describe their policy of an automatic 5 year prison term for any crime committed with a firearm. Is this a good idea, in your opinion, and should it include straw purchasers, dealers who know about straw purchases and owners whose children bring their guns out into the public?
I think yes and yes, but maybe it should be something very close to zero tolerance and not exactly 100% zero tolerance (,but very close to it).

[Greg L]

:scrutiny:

Great idea - zero tolerance has worked so well in the schools.

:rolleyes:

Greg

[Preacherman]

Zero tolerance for deliberate breaches of the law, yes. I'm not so sure about genuine mistakes, though... for example, if a guy wants a gun for his birthday, and his girlfriend buys him one (which she can do, legally, of course, as gifts are not classified as "straw purchases"), but he then uses it in a robbery, or it turns out that he's a convicted felon - if she didn't know about these things, should she be regarded in the same light as someone who did know them, but still bought him a gun? I don't think so... but then, maybe I'm too generous. Still, I think that the "benefit of the doubt" is a worthwhile concept.

[foghornl]

I have zero tolerance for any zero tolerance policy :neener:

[Tamara]

automatic 5 year prison term

I am completely opposed to any scheme of mandatory punishments.

[Oleg Volk]

A very bad idea -- will be mis-used by the next administration, if not by the current one.

[TarpleyG]

Zero tolerance of anything is not good. There are always circumstances in which something was done for a reason albeit good or no-good. Everything should be weighed on it's own merits. For instance, a boy was suspended from school for five days last week in NJ for bringing a plastic toy gun to school as part of a costume he was wearing. The ZT policy stated that he must be suspended for bringing a gun to school. Ludicrous, huh?

GT

[Feanaro]

Bad. Sometimes people make mistakes and that should be taken into account. Zero tolerance of a clear, intentional breech of the law is one thing but zero tolerance, period, is another.

[AnklePocket]

I'm glad that I asked. Thank you for the responses.
New position: "Zero Tolerance" = bad idea, but "enforcing existing laws" = good idea.
I'm going to crawl back into my hole now.

[CZ-75]

Zero Tolerance is a p***-poor solution to Zero Intelligence among all too many public officials.

[jimpeel]

Here is a piece that I wrote several years ago on this subject which was published in the Attleboro, MA Sun-Chronicle.

The Death Of Goodness In America

I was exiting a local warehouse club recently and was greeted at the door by the obligatory person who checks your receipt against the goods in your cart. I thought "Treat everyone as though they are a thief and no one can complain." I later heard the President say on television that we have reached a level of zero-tolerance in America. I thought "Treat everyone as though they are a criminal and no one can complain." The two were inexorably linked in my mind.

Most Americans can tell you that the death of common sense occurred years ago. What most fail to realize is that the death of goodness accompanied it.

Mandatory sentencing, due to the unwillingness or inability of judges to act against criminals, is one aspect of the equality in justice that has removed all semblance of cognizant thought from the process. Judges have their hands tied when it comes to sentencing; unable to differentiate between persons who broke the law with malice or those who simply fell astray. Any consideration of the motive of the accused is removed and everyone is treated as though they had heinous intent. Everyone is lumped together as a single evil entity.

Not even the President of the United States is exempt from this madness. Under the laws, as written, he has no choice but to impose sanctions on any nation that errs on any side but our own. The result is that the United States now has sanctions on many countries including some of our closest allies. Regardless of their true intent, all who err are treated as though they have the basest of intentions.

In the drunken logic of the modern bureaucrat the equality of treatment for all far outweighs the quality or fairness of that treatment. All things must be treated on an equal basis regardless of right or wrong. The problem is that when you treat all things equally you must always err on the side of evil over goodness. All things are viewed in their worst light. Of course this allows the bureaucrat of the moment to shirk any duty to fairness and relieves them of any and all responsibility for any and all decisions at any and all levels; i.e. the law is the law and it is out of my hands. Neat, concise, to the point.

Zero-tolerance is the primary example of this wrongheaded thinking. Everything is treated as equally bad and everyone is treated as equally evil. Under the guiding principles of zero-tolerance everything is at its worst. Every knife is a weapon. Every drug is a restricted drug. Every action contrary to the wishes of the authorities is evil.

When a girl picked up her mother's lunch in error one day in Longmont, Colorado she didn't realize there was a paring knife in the bag. Upon discovery of same, she brought it to the attention of her teacher, and was immediately expelled from school under zero-tolerance.

When a Providence, Rhode Island teenager used the screwdriver on his Swiss Army knife to tighten the screw on a computer case at school he was immediately suspended under zero-tolerance.

When a Denver, CO student handed out lemon drop candies to a few of his fellow students he was met with a barrage of criticism after the school panicked and called out the police, fire department, and paramedics. He was suspended under zero-tolerance.

When a girl in another city gave a girl at school an aspirin for "ladies cramps" she was immediately suspended under zero-tolerance.

What all of these kids have in common is that they were deemed to be the worst of persons with the worst of intentions; even though they were good kids and their intentions were good. They also share the common thread that it will be long and hard to bring them back to whatever respect they previously had for the system that wronged them..

What is the underlying cause for this anomaly in our nation? What has caused us to become so suspicious, so paranoid, so distrusting? In a word; litigation. Our litigious society has driven us over the brink and into the abyss from which we may never return. We now are so paranoid that if we treat one person in one manner, and another in another, we will be sued for the inequality of our actions. One, or the other, will sue us because of their real or perceived injury at our hands and we will do anything to prevent it; even the destruction of an entire generation of our children and their respect for the laws of the nation.

When we treat everyone as a criminal, a ne'er-do-well, a druggie, a purveyor; we also create hostile, disrespectful, angry human beings that will at some point live up to those expectations. We instill in the young that there is no goodness.

The time has come for the people of this nation to realize that zero-tolerance, and like laws, are destructive to our nation and our system of laws and government. The people of this nation must realize that it is time to do away with these destructive laws and return to the common sense approach to the laws that built this nation. Only through the destruction of these laws can we as a nation return to a system that seeks out and reveres goodness.

[Leatherneck]

I have zero tolerance for any deliberate act that harms another. You should too.

TC
TFL Survivor

[M67]

Testing a new sig-line.

[El Tejon]

M67, are you speaking for mandatory minimums??? "Zero tolerances" means different things.


If so, as someone who sees mandatory minimums everyday, they are horrific, warp justice and work against the very system tht imposes them.

[Tamara]

"Zero Tolerance" is the term used by some towns/cities to describe their policy of an automatic 5 year prison term for any crime committed with a firearm.

So, in some towns this could be a five-year sentence for not putting the trigger lock on your revolver or five years in the hole for having a round in the mag of the cased .243 bambi zapper in your trunk.

That's where we wind up when we bleat for "mandatory minimums" or "enforcing existing laws". :scrutiny:

[anchored]

I think zero tolerance comes close to violating the separation of powers by removing the discretion of law enforcement and the judiciary. Plus, it's just a plain bad idea that preassumes the lawmakers are omniscient, which they dang sure aint.

[M67]

El Tejon, I tried to be sarcastic. I do not believe in mandatory punishment and I do not believe in "zero tolerance".

I definitely believe in punishing criminals, but the punishment should fit the crime. Since crime is a form of human behaviour, no two crimes are the same. You cannot apply a "mathematical" formula to it. No law can cover everything, although it sure looks like some politicians try. Any criminal justice system must be based on a certain degree of common sense. That's the reason for having a jury or other forms of non-lawyer participation, isn't it?

Zero tolerance can very easily come uncomfortably close to communism - or fascism. "I was only following orders" wasn't a valid defence in Nürnberg, it shouldn't be for today's bureaucrats either.

[LiquidTension]

Here's something to think about:

I was talking to some friends at our usual Thursday night drinking establishment ($2.50 Bud/Bud Lite pitchers :D ) when the topic of zero tolerance came up. My buddy is a social worker :barf: In his job, they have zero tolerance for a social worker sleeping with a client. Here's the general flow of the conversation:

Me: "You know, if you were raped by a client, you could be fired under a true zero tolerance policy."
Him: "No you couldn't, rape is totally different from sex."
Me: "But that is the heart of zero tolerance. Intent is meaningless. No matter that you didn't WANT to have sex with the person, the fact is that SEX WAS HAD. Under the letter of the law, you could be fired for being raped."
Him: "That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard come out of your mouth."
Me: "It is true. How is it any different than the girl that accidentally brought her mom's lunch to school instead of her own, finds out that her mom's lunch had a paring knife in it, and gets expelled under zero tolerance? She didn't WANT to bring the knife to school, just like you wouldn't WANT to have sex with someone if they raped you. It is exactly the same. Under zero tolerance, it doesn't have to be your fault for you to be punished."

At this point he got so exasperated that he got up and went to the bathroom. By the time he got back, the conversation had shifted to something else.

Granted, this is an extreme example and I doubt it would ever happen. The point is, it COULD happen. Thoughts?

[standingbear]

zero tolerance...just look at the school system.kids cant even point a finger and go bang bang at recess without getting suspended.cant make even a papergun or have a squirt gun.have peoples mind became so politically correct that they forgot how to actually use them???:banghead:

[CZ-75]

At this point he got so exasperated that he got up and went to the bathroom.

Lemme guess - from his reaction and choice of jobs - he's on the left end of the spectrum?

Good point. Sounds like you blinded him with logic about the illogical.

[Waitone]

I have no problem with forcing criminals to become economists. Making them evaluate the gain of their criminal behavior against the loss of being caught. The only way an economist can make such an evaluation is to have a sure and consistent price to be paid for failure to execute a crime properly.

I opposed ZT for schools. Children brought up under ZT will be more accepting a ZT political ideology when they are adults. It is no surprise ALL totalitarian governments want to gain control over the education of the children.

[Tamara]

The only way an economist can make such an evaluation is to have a sure and consistent price to be paid for failure to execute a crime properly.

Kinda hard to do without sure and consistent definitions of "crime", though. ;)

[WonderNine]

I think the current trend towards anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic dispute or anyone convicted of a felony (such as marajuana possession) being barred from gun rights and voting rights is a very disturbing thing just as property forfeiture and no-knock police raids are.

I don't even believe that violent felons should be barred from either if they've served their time. If they are still dangerous, why are they out of jail? It's not like they can't get a gun anyways.

[4570Rick]

Strange that the ones who push “Zero Tolerance” seem to be the same ones who chant “ We must practice tolerance.” :rolleyes:

[geekWithA.45]

AnklePocket,

I've gotta disagree with you on this one. Zero Tolerance laws/policies really means "no discretion" and mandatory whatever.

Human judgement, like any tool, can be abused, but when you take it out of the system, the consequences are perverse.

The reason consequences are perverse is simply because we can't describe a "perfect" algorithm for justice, because we can't enumerate all the possible cases to which the rule might be applied.

This is an unescapable consequence of anything that is rightfully categorized as a "procedure", as opposed to a "principle".

At best, a "procedure" is an instantiation of a "principle" in a given context. Once the context changes, the procedure is no longer valid.

The principle upon which it is based, however, (assuming it's based in principle to begin with) should hold under every context, otherwise it's not a first principle.


As a society, we've gotten into a lot of trouble lately proceeding with the fundamentally mistaken notion that we can arrive at just results by continuing to tweak our procedures, without referring back to first principles.

[AnklePocket]

I plead temporary insanity. Again, thanks for the responses. I learned a hell of a lot from the thread and will never again waiver except for maybe a numbers matching '67 Vette.

[Black_Talon]

zero tolerance...just look at the school system.kids cant even point a finger and go bang bang at recess without getting suspended.cant make even a papergun or have a squirt gun.have peoples mind became so politically correct that they forgot how to actually use them???

The 10yr old boy that my wife babysits was suspended from school today because he was having a play swordfight. The kids weren't using sticks or anything, they were "air-swordfighting". Here in Kalifornistan that type of un-PC conduct is verboten. :rolleyes:

[winstonsmith]

Its strange that these people are practicing the same sort of facism that they say that they hate.

I grew up in a school that told me how to play. The teachers would tell me that guns are bad, and then I would argue with the teachers logically until they went away.

At 8, I had to defend my right to PLAY how I wanted to.

Welcome to the PRK...

[geekWithA.45]

At 8, I had to defend my right to PLAY how I wanted to.

Well, it's good practice. Those of us who are capable of independent thought find out sooner or later that's exactly the way it goes:

we

argue with the teachers logically until they went away

Sometimes, that's not enough, though. Some people will cling to irrational ideas for reasons that make sense only to them. :(

[WonderNine]

The 10yr old boy that my wife babysits was suspended from school today because he was having a play swordfight. The kids weren't using sticks or anything, they were "air-swordfighting". Here in Kalifornistan that type of un-PC conduct is verboten.

:eek: Glad I wasn't in a Kalifornistan school when I was 10y/o. They would have put me on death row. :eek: