|
|
-About
Barbara Sumner Burstyn
-Contact Barbara
-Letters
to Barbara
Point Of View
-Recent
Columns
-Back to POV
Breaking News
- Back to Spectator
Spectator editor's note: Zero Tolerance Toward
Brutality?
 Critics
of Former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's "zero tolerance"
approach to crime and street disorder said his aggressive, crime-fighting
strategy created a culture of crime figthters employing criminal
tactics to curb crime. The attack on Abner Louima took place in
an atmosphere in which abuses by police officers had increased
and punishment of officers was rare.
After being hailed as a key factor in NYC's falling crime rate
since Mayor Rudy Giuliani had taken office, the NYPD took a beating
as details of cover-ups and coercion were detailed int he Abner
Loima case against NYPD officers. An opinion poll -- taken more
than a year after the Louima incident and shortly after street
vendor Amadou Diallo died in a hail of 41 police bullets from
four white officers as he stood unarmed in his own apartment building,
put police brutality as the No. 1 concern of New Yorkers. The
image problem only worsened after Giuliani and Police Commissioner
Howard Safir appeared unapologetic for the Diallo killing and
unresponsive to New Yorkers' growing concerns about police tactics.
Zero Tolerance was seen to serve only as a shield for those in
power.
Aside from the Diallo and Louima cases, the NYPD also grappled
with some other charges of police misconduct.
Police Commissioner Howard Safir came under fire for going on
an Academy Awards junket while protesters were demanding action
on the Diallo case. As many as 20 Manhattan officers were to be
indicted over allegations they received sexual favors from a Midtown
brothel in return for shielding it from raids. The officers were
stripped of their guns and badges.
Federal and state officials looked into whether the NYPD’s “stop-and-frisk”
tactics violate the public’s rights.
The Civil Rights Commission held hearings. According to Amnesty
International, there were calls for an inquiry into police brutality
by the NYPD following a series of highly publicized cases during
the 1980s.
They include the cases of: Michael Stewart, a young African-American
who died in 1983, 13 days after being taken to the hospital hogtied,
bruised and in a coma following his arrest by 11 officers from
the New York City Transit Police Department.
Eleanor Bumpers, was an elderly, mentally disturbed woman who
was killed in 1984 by armed police who broke into her Bronx apartment
to evict her after she had fallen behind with her rent. In both
cases, the officers were acquitted of criminal wrongdoings. And
in April 1985, officers from the 106th Precinct in Queens were
accused of torturing three suspects with an electronic stun gun
to force them into a drug-related confession. Two officers and
a sergeant were convicted of assault and other charges and sentenced
to prison terms from two to six years. Several high-ranking police
commanders were also dismissed.
Zero Tolerance, as opposed to broken windows policy, is being
applauded by New Zealand's ACT party. But it does so without considered
regard to the excesses such a policy cultivates within the power-elite
and police departments. Therefore, ACT's Zero Tolerance policy
ought to be observed with the disgust it deserves.
Spectator
Editor.
All content and intellectual property displayed on www.spectator.co.nz/POV,
unless otherwise expressed, is copyright 2002 to Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point Of View!
Zero Tolerance Makes Zero Sense - April
24 2002 - By Barbara
Sumner Burstyn
"We need a New York-style zero tolerance approach which has reduced
violent crime in that city by 30 percent," said ACT party leader
Richard Prebble on March 22.
The press release goes on to state that violent crime in New
Zealand has risen by 14.9 % since the last election.
 But
Mr Prebble must have his wires crossed. Not only did New York not
implement zero tolerance per se (their program was called Broken
Windows) the effectiveness of the program in reducing crime has
been hotly contested.
During the period that New York experienced its crime drop San Francisco
also found its crime rate dive by more than 30% following the implementation
of a range of alternative and liberal crime reduction polices.
According to the New Zealand Police there may not even be an actual
increase in crime at all, but rather an increase in reporting through
cell phones, lower public tolerance and a pro-arrest family violence
policy. And certainly the ACT press release forgot to mention that
burglaries are down by 14.6 % and homicide, surely the most serious
of violent crime has remained about the same for the past decade.
In fact crime in general in New Zealand, along with most other English
speaking countries, is in decline. In America many types of crime
are at their lowest levels in 30 years. And while advocates of harsh
penal systems say the lowered levels are evidence of the success
rate of zero tolerance it certainly doesn't account for the corresponding
drop in countries like Canada where the incarceration rates are
almost one-sixth that of America.
According to recent publications such as Race to Incarcerate  by
Marc Mauer and The Crime Drop in America, there's ample evidence
that declining crime is a result of a combination of factors. One
contributor to the latter title, University of Texas, Austin mathematician
William Spelman even concluded his research into crime by saying
that "increased incarceration accounts for perhaps as little as
'one-forth of the crime drop."
All this would suggest that ACT's bland acceptance of the US figures
is, if not intentional then certainly specious. But it seems that
even if they omitted to substantiate their figures or provide balanced
and researched information they have got one thing right. Zero tolerance
is a vote catcher.
In the States tough-on-crime policies have proved to be a constant
crowd pleaser with many commentators believing that politicians
and voters have caused the US prison boom not the actual crime rate.
And what a boom it is. With just five percent of the world's population
America has 25 per cent of its prisoners - that's over 2 million
incarcerated people, with California alone housing more prisoners
than Canada, Germany and Italy combined.
But what does zero tolerance mean? What began in 1986 as off-the-cuff
comment by a San Diego District Attorney discussing his office's
approach to drug shipments has mushroomed into an epidemic of one-size-fits-all
policies regardless of circumstance and devoid of personal judgment.
Picked up immediately by politicians, the term has become so pervasive
that it now represents the new orthodoxy in public debate, stifling
all discussion on alternatives not grounded in punishment. Ironically
the first ship seized under the San Diego ruling, a multi-million
dollar research vessel found to contain a single joint left behind
by a scientist, had to be given back, proving immediately how flawed
the concept was.
But beyond political rhetoric and any real analysis of crime rates
and the seduction of thinking you'll make a country safer by locking
up more criminals, what does zero tolerance mean in a community?
In New Zealand implementation would represent a subtle but powerful
move away from believing in rehabilitation. It would mean we genuinely
believe that a good proportion of offenders are beyond help. It
would change the way New Zealanders think of prisons and prisoners,
just as it has in California where the word rehabilitation was recently
removed from statutes and replaced with 'punishment'. There, deterrence,
incapacitation, even vengeance are the guiding principals of the
'punishment industry.'
If we do in fact believe that a whole segment of society is beyond
help - and zero tolerance would ensure that imprisonment becomes
the first response of first resort for many social problems - then
how do we treat the people caught in that net? Do we need to add
a codicil to not only our human rights legislation but also New
Zealanders fundamental belief in equality?
But it goes further than that. There's ample evidence the zero tolerance
attitude has a habit of slipping from the domain of the criminal
into every day life. Especially into education where in the States
kids as young as six can and have been suspended from school and
in some cases prosecuted for so much as pointing a crumbed chicken
finger, for drawing a picture of a weapon, for wearing perfume in
contravention of scent-free policy or for even giving an aspirin
to a classmate. And it doesn't stop there, zero tolerance has many
permutations. With each incremental increase in legislation the
arena of our decision-making is reduced. Judgment calls; that moment
when you're faced with a dilemma, with something that's cruel or
unjust, or even petty and minor will be reduced to deciding which
flavour yoghurt to buy and any meaningful connect with the deeper
values of right and good, with personal consequence, will be all
but eliminated. And ironically even ACT's own stated principals;
individual freedom and choice, personal responsibility and the protection
of the life, liberty and property of each and every citizen will
be at risk - unless of course they actually mean it to be applied
to just a segment of the population.
So vote catching aside, even a simple analysis of ACT's zero tolerance
policy reveals not only how flawed it is but just who the real beneficiaries
will be: the prison building and management industry. In America
it has become a major business, soaking up increasing chunks of
government funds at the expense of health and education, but all
supposedly at the behest of the voters, sold a panacea for an non-existence
illness.
And if ACT gets its way, New Zealand won't be far behind.
Barb expresses her thanks to
Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen, for additional research.
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn April
2002.
P.O.V. with Barbara Sumner Burstyn @ http://www.spectator.co.nz/POV
Send your comments to:
Barb Sumner Burstyn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
