mariosmentor Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 What do you guys all think about the possibility of Zero Tolerance being implemented in the UK? David Cameron is currently backing the policy. Pro's - Criminals not going unpunished. - Deterrent from life of crime(Especially for children) - Safer society - Harsher Sentences - Eventual lower crime rate(According to New York) Con's - Meager transgressions don't go unpunished(Illegal parking) mainly law abiding people also effected. - Those sent to imprisonment for a first time offense may feel crime is their livelihood upon release(Especially for children and young persons) - Individuals Imprisoned for first time offense may learn criminal ways in jail - Need more money for more policing and more jails Discuss! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 it's a pile of poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariosmentor Posted September 4, 2007 Author Share Posted September 4, 2007 it's a pile of poo. C'mon then, details! Why are you against it? Is it because it is reminiscent of a police state? Do you think it won't lower the crime rate in young people? In this day and age where mothers are buying stab vests for their children maybe changes should be made but is Zero Tolerance too extreme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPhee Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Zero Tollerance is fine by me, but tbh i don't think this country is really in a bad enough state to actually need it Crime ain't that rife and so called "Gang Wars" are pretty lame considering whats going on elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 well, if zero tolerence were in effect, im pretty sure it would be a horrible place to live. imagine your friend is lying bleeding in your car as you drive them to hospital, only to get done for speeding. or maybe youve gotten a little drunk in a pub and quietly stumble home being outherwise peacefull. you could get arrested for that. zero tolerence to me is an alright theory, but in practice every crime is diffrent, circumstances come into effect that change things from being black and white. say i beat a man up, i should go down for gbh. but if i find him attempting to rape a woman and beat him up, should i still be punnished to the same extent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I think so, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Will having officers tied up doing all the paperwork, interviews, arrests, giving evidence etc for some kid they found with a little bit of weed or some guy who double parked rather than being out there in a visible presence on the street really make neurotic mothers cancel their order for stab-proof vests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr-Paul Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I'm not sure totally what my opinion is. There is evidence that it has worked in America, as the threat of zero tolerance will deter people from commiting crime, but I'm not sure if we need it here. I need to know more to make a real decision on my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariosmentor Posted September 4, 2007 Author Share Posted September 4, 2007 Partly I think the media is to blame for neurotic mothers. Blowing everything out of proportion all you see now in the papers is shootings, stabbings or drugs. It's similar to the immigration scare a few years back where the media was going crazy over it but facts revealed that the UK was one of the countries with the least % of the population not a native. That was a few years back however, don't know what it's like now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 If it manages to stop things like that 11 yearold being shot in the head a few weeks back, or what happened to me, then I'm all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowV7 Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 For things like this to happen you need a sort of 'sacrifice' so to speak.So for crime to drop down, normal folk that don't cause much hassle will also need to put up with these conditions, though all this can be debated about. But ultimately it cuts down crime so most folk will believe it needs done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariosmentor Posted September 4, 2007 Author Share Posted September 4, 2007 What about anybody here with a dog? Would you be ok with being arrested for not picking up it's shit? What about walking home after too many pints and waking up in a cell for being drunk and disorderly? And the policy doesn't mean that crime will stop. It just mean that criminals will suffer the full penalty with no leniency. Even the New York system is under scrutiny because even though the crime level has lowered it has also done in other states without the policy. Other alternatives are California's 3 strike policy where on you're third serious conviction you receive an automatic life sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I blame the media...gun crime is actually going down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st century cowboy Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I'd prefer Zero Tolerance to be honest. The times are changing and there is more crime and just a growing populus of people without an iota of respect for anyone and anything. Something needs to be done about it and this seems like a step in the right direction. If people actully start fearing breaking the law it may reduce the number of individuals that do. It annoys me when I see dog shit when I'm taking my 2 year old nephew round are back field for a walk. If the fear of prison would stop this occuring then I'd be ok with it. If you don't cause a nucence to society you've got nothing to worry about. Simple as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I think in some cases its better. Like in Japan you get fined a billion dollars for littering on the street. But I think that unless you help a criminal to live a normal life, you are just continuing the circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodleman Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I hope everybody who agrees to this, is prepared to go to prison for anyway mp3's they may have abtained illegally Besides we dont have nearly enough cells at the moment to even begin thinking of implementing zero tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Chris Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 No way. With zero tolerance comes invasion of privacy, surveillance and loss of rights. Why should the actions of the few cause a decrease in personal rights for the majority. Imagine all this crap with "terrorism" laws being used to search and stop innocent people, or arrest people for "crimes" that are clearly not terrorist related but its the only thing they are chargeable for. That sort of occurrence will exponentially increase within a zero tolerance society. If anything it will increase the number of gun and organised crimes. Criminals adapt to the conditions. Arm the police and every burglar with feel the need that they have to carry a gun, rather than the minority. You don't stop crime, you just force the criminals to take more precautions about not getting caught. I am a libertarian however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 No way. With zero tolerance comes invasion of privacy, surveillance and loss of rights. Why should the actions of the few cause a decrease in personal rights for the majority. Law-abiding citizens won't have any less rights than they did before if they continue to stay on the right side of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I hope everybody who agrees to this, is prepared to go to prison for anyway mp3's they may have abtained illegally lol, that's rubbish. Just because it's zero tolerance doesn;t mean they will suddenly find and arrest everone who has ever downloaded mp3's/movies etc off the internet. It would mean so many of the chavs etc on the streets casuing trouble who get so many warnings and then end up kicking someones head in because they think they can get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodleman Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 lol, that's rubbish. Just because it's zero tolerance doesn;t mean they will suddenly find and arrest everone who has ever downloaded mp3's/movies etc off the internet. It would mean so many of the chavs etc on the streets casuing trouble who get so many warnings and then end up kicking someones head in because they think they can get away with it. If its actualy zero tolerance then yes it does. Its a crime what ever way you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtle Squad Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 I think it's a great idea....But too late like EVERY OTHER THING the Govt. does. I'm especially in line with the children thing; I also think their should be higher fines, in order to fund other 'punishments'. Another good idea (I think) which isn't used is to coscript the less dangerous with long sentences into the Army. Law-abiding citizens won't have any less rights than they did before if they continue to stay on the right side of the law. Yep....I hate it when people are like "its a breach of privacy and human rights" blah blah!! If people are like that they've obviously got something to hide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 If you steal something, amputate their little finger. If they do it again, take off another one. It would certainly stop people stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Chris Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 Law-abiding citizens won't have any less rights than they did before if they continue to stay on the right side of the law. Of course not. But zero tolerance means no crimes must be committed, and how would our concerned government be able to know if crimes were being commited it they can't check peoples emails, track peoples movements via cameras, be able to stop and search anyone when they feel like it (we lost that one with terrorism laws). That not only goes hand in hand with the fact most laws are complete bollocks. The police can't pick and choose with laws they punish, no matter how silly they seem. It also means kids that would usually get scared by a caution would almost be hounded into a life of crime by the society they live in. It sounds fine in theory, all those poor kids not killed needlessly, chavs being moved off the streets, but in reality there are alot more factors to zero-tolerance that don't pull at our heart strings. Like everything the government says they'll only consider something if there are benefits to them. That usually means more power and they usually don't like to tell people about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the great Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 If you steal something, amputate their little finger. If they do it again, take off another one. It would certainly stop people stealing. bullshit would it, it would just mean people would be more carefull about it. also, its circumsancial, say you have a full pack of mints in your pocket, a shop keeper accuses you of theft despite the fact they are from anouther store and the mint are found in your pocket, you dont have a recipt, you could lose a finger for a mix up? look at states in america which have the death sentence, the fact people end up on death row even though they are aware of the danger points to it clearly not being the ultimate deterent the the daily mail would have you belive. in the past, people faced torture and execution for crimes and yet criminals still existed. as long as you dont get caught, the law is helpless to stop you. indeed, in a stricter society convictions would be less common as the cost of a mistake is so high. while i agree that tougher measure should be brought in, under a zero tolerence, totalitarian rule we'd all be criminals (i mean in the uk) for not practicing with a bow and arrow for two hours a week with our local vicar. illigaly downloaded materials would be met with firm punishments. we dont have the facilities to deal with all the criminals it would create. we dont have the cells. we dont have the police man power, which would be further streached by increased paper work, taxes would rise. lets just use an example of somthing that could happen to me. I collect swords as a hobby. somtimes, in traveling between home and uni it is necicary for me to carry these sword between the street and the car, a distance of 5-10 meters. techincaly, what im doing is illigal, but should a police officer arrest me for it? most would not, under zero tolerance, id be in jail for it. yes, society has a problem with a lack of respect, but its unfair to attribute this to the law. look back 50 years, if anything we had fewer laws, but people had respect then. perhaps we should veiw this as the parents fault for being to lenient, or the medias fault for glamerising crime. zero tolerence would be the first step towards 1984. after all, if theres zero tolerence to crimes your caught for, why not survay every one at all times. why not place security cameras in changing rooms to stop people shop lifting, why not film people on the toilet to make sure they arnt taking drugs, why not film people at home to make sure they are staying crime free. its a slipery slope we cant afford to go down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted September 4, 2007 Share Posted September 4, 2007 If its actualy zero tolerance then yes it does. Its a crime what ever way you look at it. Yes I realise that, I mean if this became law they wouldn't suddenly find everyone signle person on earth who has download music illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts