PJA home | PJA News | Email PJA | Other contacts
"Zero Tolerance" has made its way from New York to Australia! As the name suggests this policing strategy requires police on the ground to have a "Zero Tolerance" to crime and 'anti-social' behaviour. The discretion of police to turn a blind eye to certain behaviour in the name of greater public good is taken away. This style of policing is based on the assumption that attacking lower level anti-social offending or "nipping it in the bud" leads to a reduction in more serious crime. While some accounts, mainly from the police, suggest that it is responsible for a turnaround in crime statistics in New York (The Age, 10.10.97) other research suggests that there is at best a limited relationship between crime levels and police practices (Palmer, Alternative Law Journal, 1997;232).
In October 1997 Victoria Police announced the implementation of a Zero Tolerance policing strategy to combat drug and drug related crime in the Dandenong-Springvale area of Melbourne. In launching "Operation Laurel" Chief Inspector John McKoy said police would adopt "a very low tolerance for people hanging around the streets who have no just cause to be there (The Age, 23.10.97)".
Zero Tolerance raises a number of concerns including:
• the undesirability of the removal of police discretion;
• the inability of the police to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate use of public space; and
• the ineffectiveness of criminalisation to appropriately deal with drug related issues.
Groups like the Federation of Community Legal Centres (and PJA) are concerned that Zero Tolerance strategies only result in certain sections of our community bearing the brunt of police activity. Those groups that don't fit into the "nice" category for the police usually bear the brunt of police prejudice and mistreatment end up coming under even greater scrutiny. The lack of discretion for officers in a Zero Tolerance environment means that these groups are criminalised for behaviour that in other areas or in usual policing would be overlooked or resolved without resort to charges being laid and referral to the court system. For the young and people in minority groups who are visibly different from the general population, and in particular indigenous, black and Asian young people are particularly vulnerable. The absence of discretion when charging minor offences and the policing of "anti-social behaviours" can only lead to the over representation of these minorities in the criminal justice system increasing. This inconsistency in approach is evidenced by the pilot project cautioning first time possessors of cannabis in Victoria Police I District being underway at the same time as the introduction of Zero Tolerance in Springvale.
Police are not known for their ability to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate use of public space. Public space particularly in shopping centres and mall areas are a major pole of attraction for groups such as young people yet at the same time these groups are commonly subjected to an extraordinary amount of surveillance, coercion and harassment related to their simple presence (White (1996) Negotiating youth-specific public space: a guide for youth & community workers, town planners and local councils, NSW Department of Training, Education and Co-ordination;3). The forces of public amenity are increasingly resulting in pressure to remove "undesirable" and confronting elements form the view of the public. Behaviour that may be unsightly and offend, such as drinking in public, begging, hanging around and legitimate use of public space by marginalised groups isn't tolerated and the "perpetrators" are moved on, fined or worse. Zero Tolerance is likely to lead to an exacerbation of the difficulties already experienced by certain groups. It suggests that anti-social behaviour should be punished and not overlooked but has the unfortunate side effect of criminalising those who by necessity or by right are in public space but in the eyes of the police "have no just cause to be there". The disadvantaged are therefore more likely to come to the attention of the police in this way while the apprehension of more serious offenders may or may not occur.
Over-policing and criminalisation will not solve problems associated with drug use. Prohibition policies are fatally flawed because they assume it is possible to prevent supply and use of illicit drugs by enforcing criminal sanctions. Prohibition does not work - it has not suppressed the supply of illicit drugs nor has it reduced their use. Despite spending huge amounts on law enforcement, the erosion of civil liberties in the pursuit of drug convictions and increased penalties there is no equivalent reduction in supply/use (FCLC (1996) Submission to the Premier's Drug Advisory Council;3). We are constantly being told that Governments have limited resources for harm minimisation strategies by strategies such as Zero Tolerance policing continue to be able to access scarce resources.
What is clear about Zero Tolerance is that it will clean up the streets. Strategies such as this pander to the prejudices of mainstream society against those who are different. It will not, however, solve the underlying causes of drug related crime ... it will only move it on ... and on ... and on.
By Pauline Spencer, Policy Worker, Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic) Inc and Stan Krpan, Youth Lawyer, North Melbourne Legal Service.
HTML and design by Takver.