“The Police are the Public and the Public are the Police” Robert Peel cited in Lentz et al (2007)

This essay will begin by defining Zero Tolerance Policy (ZTP), when it first emerged and the strategies used the enforce the policies. The paper will look at the dramatic decline of crime in New York City (NYC) and the United Kingdom (UK) and discuss some of the criticism to the approach. Broken window theory underpins the zero tolerance tactics (Kelly & Wilson 1983); the theory linked disorder to crime and demand minor crime to be pursued with as much force as serious crime.

The idea is, if a window is left broken then a passer-by will presume that no one cares and there is no social order leading to more windows being broken. It is their belief, that young criminals will start to move in and will assume, no social norm is being enforced, which will eventually lead to serious crimes. The middle class residents will feel threatened by the homeless person, beggars, drug addicts and gangs and will eventually move to a more civil area. Kelling & Wilson (1983) argued that it is easier to prevent a neighbourhood falling into crime than to rescue it from crime.

The policy demands speed and efficiency which weakens due process in favour of crime control. According to Marshall (1999), ZPT includes the following elements; firstly, the use of vigorous law enforcement in response to minor crime and disorder. Secondly, the use of civil law against those suspected of being involved with in criminal activity. Thirdly, the introduction of Comstat which enhances the accountability of the police managers. Fourthly, the approach is target driven in relation to crime reduction. Fifthly, the media plays a role in relating the message to the public. Finally, a large number of officers (the street unit) are deployed to areas using aggressive tactics against street crime i.e (stop &search). ZTP is more popularly associated with police reformation strategies in NYC, in the early 1990s.

During 1970-1980, there were popular images circulated of NYC as the “FEAR CITY, THE NEW GOTHAM”. Murder rates increased in the summer in the 1990’s, which generated moral panics and shocking headlines stating the city gangs were determined to turn Manhattan into a killing ground. Politicians and senior officers believed crime was driving tourist, businesses and middle-class residents away. The message was, the primary purpose of a police officer was to defend public space (e.g time square).

In 1993, Mayor Guiliani, Commissioner William Bratton and Criminologist George Kelling produced a method to enable the police to deal with perceived nuisance behaviour. The focus was Kelling’s Broken Window thesis and how, it could be applied to crime and restore order on the streets. The thesis focused on the use of informal social control to help minimise crime in local areas; it viewed disorder such as graffiti, begging, protest, vandalism and litter as a vicious circle that could lead to more crimes.

The statistics from NYC showed crime falling dramatically between 1992-1998. Homicide decreased 72%, burglary 62% and robbery declined 61% (BBC News,1997). The data appears to support Bratton’s claims, changes in the police practice contributed to the dramatic reduction crime. An example was, persistant stop and search was linked to the number of young people carrying guns in the city, this in turn led to a reduction in homicide, since gun are less accessible in gangs and drugs confrontation (Bowling,1999). William Bratton, has later rejected the term Zero Tolerance citing it is an unrealistic statement of what can really be achieved (Bratton,1997:42).

ZTP, was introduced in a few areas in the UK. However, Hartlepool and Strathcylde was the only area that seems to have successfully implemented The policy.This was done under the guidance of detective superintendent Ray Mallon and John Ors. In between 1980-1992 the overall crime figure doubled in Cleveland, and reported burglary tripled from 4,300-13,200. Mallon’s approach was similar to Bratton, his objective was to reduce crime and reclaim the streets (Dennis & Mallon 1997:66).

Anti-Social behaviour (ASB) and nuisance crime were their main focus. Detail of the policy were unclear, but discretionary policing was used, offenders would not be automatically arrested for minor crimes. This approach was evident between 1995-1996, there were 59 cases involving young people hanging around in shopping centres causing a nuisance, 28 of the suspects were arrested and the remaining boys, letters were sent their parents notifying them of the boy’s misconduct. Mallon’s rational was, concentrating on minor crimes and disorder, was a way of preventing young people from becoming career criminals. Car theft declined 56% and overall reported crimes declined 27% between 1994-1999, although in the same period domestic crime increased 31%. Dennis and Mallon (1997) reported, reduction in crime in Hartlepool is directly linked to the police reformation.

Reported crime in Strathclyde, was at its highest in the 1990’s. However, by 1996 crime fell by 20%. Nonetheless newly appointed commissioner John Ors (1997) suggested the fear of crime within the community was rising because drunken behaviour, graffiti and vandalism was still visible to the wider public. The statistic showed 33% decrease in the number of people found in the possession of a knife and also a reduction of serious offence and street crime. However, it should be noted that crime was falling without the introduction of the new police strategy, so to know the full effect of the policy is difficult to analyse.

ZTP have been very limited in the UK, with only a few areas undertaking some of the elements used NYPD. This could be a direct consequence of the Scarman’s, 1981 report which stated, the police high attention and aggressive use of stop and search led to the Brixton riots. Operation Swamp 81 has many of the characteristic of ZTP; however, the New Labour agenda was “Tough on Crime and the Causes of Crime” (Labour, 1997). In 1998, they introduced the Crime and Disorder Act, which is the backbone of the ASBO; the anti social behaviour order, which is the use of civil remedy to combat crime and this is an element of the ZTP.

The results, in the UK are similar to NYC; both Hartlepool and Strathcylde data showed a reduction in crime the same period ZTP was introduced. There has been a few criticism of Zero Tolerance Policy; firstly, Bratton claimed, the changes in NYPD were solely responsible for the reduction in crime. However, Brereton (1999) argued, the recent reduction in NYC could be part of a worldwide trend which started in the early 1990’s and would have continued, whether or not reforms were introduced the police (1999;5).

In addition, there were reductions in crime in 17 of the largest cities in America, that were using different police tactics. This suggest, there are other factors involved, such as economic revival and demographic shift. For example, a decreasing population of young people who were key factors in recent USA crime rate reduction. They also cited a link between the reduction of crack cocaine users and a decline in violent crime (Travis,1998., cited in: Marshall 1999).

Beckett and Herbert (2008) argued, ZTP was implemented to clear the streets of unwanted people; however, with rising poverty and lack of affordable housing many people in America are left homeless. ZTP, bans the homeless from returning to the public space and if they do, they will be arrested. They believed, on the surface ZTP seems to show the police are concerned with urban disorder but in reality, it is not cost effective to run, it does not reduce crime and doesn’t address problems that can lead to urban poverty (educational and housing inequality).

Simon (2007) reasoned by using policies such as ZTP, the Government is governing society through the fear of crime. This is, visible in our everyday life such as the workplace, residential communities and school (i.e metal detectors). Many sociologists refer to this as mass imprisonment, Simon (2007) also believes governing through crime, makes society less democratic and more racially polarised; the poor and ethnic minorities are subjected to high police attention and are disproportionately arrested and imprisoned, whilst the middleclass are constantly in fear of crime. Simon cited, the government uses crime to cover other motives, because the majority will support them.

ZTP, seems to be accepted in the USA more than the UK; this could be due to the difference in the development of the Criminal Justice System. On the outset the figures in NYC and the UK are quite remarkable and dramatic; however, crime was already on the decline before the new police reform were introduced, which suggest there are other factors involved; such as demographic movement. Therefore, the true effect of the policy is unclear. Simon (2007) makes a convincing point, the fear of crime seems to allow the government to implement tactics that defers from due process to more crime control. 

According to Robert Peel, “the public are the police and the police are the public”. This statement seems to be in direct contrast to the ZTP, because it does not promote social cohesion. In addition, the disproportionate use of stop and search undermines the social contract between the police and the community; as we have seen; it is a contract that requires, the community to give moral authority to the police to fulfil their purpose. ZTP has severe consequences for the poor and ethnic groups and seems to satisfy the interest of the majority, whilst discriminating against the minority. The government is not solving the social problems that make a person homeless, or participate in criminal activity.

The homeless are banished, with the problem of poverty still existing.

Author: Keithia Grant

#ExtinctionRebellionJamaica