Zero Tolerance: Policing a Free Society - Softcover

Mallon, Ray; Bratton, William J; Orr, John; Pollard, Charles

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0255364326 ISBN 13: 9780255364324

Publisher: Civitas:Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 1997

Synopsis

This book brings together police officers from both sides of the Atlantic to describe their efforts to deal effectively with rising crime. Commenting on the controversial 'zero tolerance' strategy they reach a number of different conclusions. Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon of Cleveland Police, celebrated by the media as 'Britain's toughest cop', describes his policing philosophy. William Bratton introduced 'zero-tolerance policing' when made Commissioner of the New York Police Department in 1994. Two Chief Constables, Charles Pollard (Thames Valley) and John Orr (Strathclyde Police) plus Commander William Griffiths of the Metropolitan Police comment.

About this title

Review:

Worthy of a place in any police library and recommended reading for all. -- The Police Journal, 1 May 1998

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.:

(From the Editor's Introduction) The term 'zero tolerance' is an unfortunate one. Few people, least of all those brought up in and professionally trained to respect British traditions, are in favour of intolerance, or would admit it if they were. Reacting only to the term, without knowing what it refers to, clergymen assume that it means lack of compassion (whereas it is compassion's necessary pre-condition); and defenders of a free society assume that it means the repression of civil liberties (whereas it is the only way to secure them). 'Zero tolerance' is the label for a form of policing that was introduced quite independently but at just about the same time in New York, under its mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and in Hartlepool under DCI Ray Mallon. The essence of the badly-named zero-tolerance crime strategy is not intolerance but confidence. It is marked in the first place by the confidence of the police officer in handling situations that come within his lawful purview, down to the lowest level of sub-criminal, quality-of-life, offences. Whether a quality-of-life offence is dealt with by a joke, or with the lightest of hands that is required by the situation, it is dealt with with a view to stopping the offence, and stopping a repetition of it. The objective that is to prevail is clear. It is the police officer's, not the culprit's. The tactics to achieve the objective will always be as tolerant as possible. But the tactics are those of the police officer, not those of the offender or his pressure-group protector. It is confident policing in a second sense. Under such policing the public is confident that the police, decently and within laws strongly oriented towards the defence of civil liberties, are effectively protecting them from attacks on their right to go about their business without interference, not only from criminals, but from louts. Zero-tolerance policing is based on three ideas. One is the simple principle, 'nip things in the bud'. Prevent anti-social elements developing the feeling that they are in charge. Prevent a broken-down and ugly environment of neglect becoming a breeding ground for crime and disorder. The second idea is that, in comparison with serious offences, low-intensity, humane, good-natured controls to the give-and-take of decent social intercourse is a tactic open to the police officer. The third follows from the first two. At this low level of control, zero-tolerance policing can make a distinct difference, directly by reducing petty crime, vandalism, graffiti and low-level disorder, and indirectly by creating an environment less hospitable to more serious criminals.

Police officers have a very specific job to do. They are not and cannot be all-purpose social workers. So far as their legal powers and rules of guidance permit, and public opinion allows, it is to see that people can go about their lawful business within a public environment which has not been gratuitously degraded, in an atmosphere of reasonable give-and-take, and without great anxiety that their homes or cars will have been broken into when they return to them. Not 'clamping down' on minor misdemeanours, if 'clamping down' is the question-begging phrase the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to use, is the certain way of not solving the problem. For not only do you not solve the problem in the form in which it becomes manifest to the public, and in so far as it is controllable by the police. You provide a breeding ground in which the same and worse problems can fester. 'Clamping down'lard shows in this volume, shared assumptions about crime can lead to a variety of policing strategies. 'Neighbourhood policing' in San Diego is not the same as 'community policing' in New York City. 'Confident policing' in Hartlepool is not identical with 'problem-solving policing' in the Thames Valley Constabulary area, nor with intelligence-led policing in London, nor with the Spotlight Initiative in Strathclyde. When the police have done their job, then, as compassionate private citizens, compassionate politicians, compassionate social workers, compassionate clergy, compassionate pressure-groups and compassionate charities, we can do ours. The intention of this volume is not to press a case. Like others in the series, it is to start a discussion which brings open minds to bear on the ascertainable data of a neglected matter of emerging and urgent public concern.

About this edition

• Publisher: Civitas:Institute for the Study of Civil Society
• Publication date: 1997
• ISBN 10: 0255364326
• ISBN 13: 9780255364324
• Binding: Paperback
• Edition number: 2
• Number of pages: 159
• Editor: Dennis Norman