In motoring enforcement the phrase is never far away from policymakers lips, perhaps the most recent example is the report of a 'zero tolerance crackdown' on mobile phone use while driving in Northern Ireland. Whilst I certainly do not condone the activity, it is very dangerous, I do have reservations of any policy that sells itself as 'zero tolerance'. Frequently such policies aren't truly zero tolerance; officers do still exercise discretion albeit perhaps with less frequency than they may have previously. But my main objection is that frequently those who claim to want zero tolerance, don't actually want anything of the sort, they want zero tolerance against certain types of people not certain types of behaviour.
My objection to zero tolerance stems more from the idea that it represents something that we, the public want. Frequently we don't want anything like zero tolerance policing on the roads, just listen to anyone debating speeding and you will soon hear the call for greater discretion
In speeding enforcement the argument typically means that we want zero tolerance against boyracers etc... but in our case, good honest upstanding decent hardworking citizens that we are want our police force to have a bit of discretion, a bit of common sense, to recognise that although we may speed, we are not speeders.
True zero tolerance policing would not recognise that difference, the zero tolerance is to behaviour not motivation. Thus if we accidentally speed, under zero tolerance, the accidental nature of our speeding is unimportant we will be punished in exactly the same manner as if we had deliberately set out to speed (£100 fine and 3 Points). It is no exaggeration to suggest that great feelings of injustice typically accompany being found to be a speeder, and typically our first complaint is that the officer / police force lacks discretion and common sense.
These calls to commonsense are the antithesis of zero tolerance, it's a call for personalised discretion based on our common understand that it is the other, not us, that is the real problem, and the officers / agencies zero tolerance focus should be on them.
Actual zero tolerance policing can, thus, create greater problems for law enforcement agencies, where citizens feel that the actions they are taking are illegitimate and used for an illegitimate purpose ("to catch out" or "prey on the easy target").
Zero tolerance certainly does have benefits for enforcement agencies, and can be defended on a principled basis. It removes the potential for "bad" discretion (where officers undertake enforcement for less noble purposes e.g. racism), although, short of constant surveillance of officers actions, even a policy of zero tolerance cannot outlaw this practice. However it does save officers the need for having to justify each instance of punishment, especially in hard cases, and can thus encourage more robust action against behaviour. (Note behaviour not motivation!)
Do we really want zero tolerance, I suspect not, what we want is an operationalised form of zero tolerance, one that can recognize the difference between behaviour and motivation, and punish those where both motivation and behaviour are aimed at law breaking. However this is not what zero tolerance generally implies.
Zero tolerance is an easy statement to make and conjures up images of an efficient, effective enforcement scheme that captures all the people we want it to capture. But the hard cases, what about them? What about the car that parks 5cm over the line, or 1cm over the line. With ZTP we should say, a la Hawaii Five-O, 'book em Danno'? I suspect not many would agree with that. Thus do we really want zero tolerance? Probably not.
Do we need zero tolerance? Well that is a question for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment