Zero Tollerance.

mkpdavies · 24-07-2005, 01:10 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20...trorailstation

Quote:

In a zero tolerance case, the court upheld the arrest and booking of a 12-year-old girl for eating a French fry on the Washington, D.C., subway system, where consuming food is prohibited by law. Her lawyers challenged the legality of her arrest. In October 2004, Roberts wrote the majority opinion rejecting her contentions:

Quote:

No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation. A 12-year-old girl was arrested, searched and handcuffed. Her shoelaces were removed, and she was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted and detained until released to her mother some three hours later — all for eating a single French fry in a Metrorail station

This is what bothers me about Zero tollerance, when it is used by police who no longer have the ability to use common sense, but follow procedure like a robot, out of fear of being told of for screwing up.

Do we really want this sort of situation occuring in the UK if we create Zero tollerance. Surely a kid should not be subjected to this!

C_steam · 24-07-2005, 05:54 PM

Yes. She won't do it again.

Zero tolerance means - Oh! Zero tolerance.

No-one ever is served one french fry. It means she managed to eat one frennch fry from the packet she was holding I would presume.

The law says no eating. She ate. They booked her. Whats the problem?

WindupMerchant · 24-07-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

Yes. She won't do it again.

Zero tolerance means - Oh! Zero tolerance.

No-one ever is served one french fry. It means she managed to eat one frennch fry from the packet she was holding I would presume.

The law says no eating. She ate. They booked her. Whats the problem?

Quite agree

mkpdavies · 24-07-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

No-one ever is served one french fry. It means she managed to eat one frennch fry from the packet she was holding I would presume

.

Rather presumptuous, could have been handed the last chip from a friend, but hey, it was still and illegal chip.

Quote:

The law says no eating. She ate. They booked her. Whats the problem?

Well I guess it's one way of getting the fingerprints of every citizen. I just hope she doesn't make two more childish errors, as 3 strikes and shes looking at a stretch.

Strike 2, she walks on some grass that says no walking on the grass. She didn't see the sign, but being 12 isn't and excuse.

Strike 3, she has one of her funny friends plant a pack of sweets in the shop and she walks out without paying. Shame the shop security though they were a team, and the fact her friend was her 4 year old brother is no excuse.

Scum like that really should be removed from society I guess.

Anthony Butcher · 24-07-2005, 06:23 PM

I actually think that this is probably a very good example of zero-tolerance working. How many people are going to risk eating on the subway now?

The real question is whether we want a society that treats people so badly, which is your objection I think Matt, and I agree. Zero tolerance may work in terms of ending breaches of the law, but it also creates a litigation nightmare police-state.

mkpdavies · 24-07-2005, 06:53 PM

My biggest problem is I hate to think kids deserve the same treatment as adults.

If this was a fully grown man, I wouldn't care so much. I just know kids make mistakes as the grow up and I wonder if Zero tollerance on all occasions should apply, or whether some sound judegment from our frontline police may be a better choice.

This may mean certain little brats do gate the ZT treatment, but a severe ticking off would be more than adequate for others.

I hate set procedures, when human common sense can be a better option.

C_steam · 25-07-2005, 11:00 AM

Young Girl. One chip. Broke the law. Got booked. Unlikely to do again.

Contrast with:

Brazilian man. One jacket. Ran Away. Got Shot. Can't do it again.

Which do you prefer?

mkpdavies · 25-07-2005, 12:54 PM

I don't reall prefer either, but the kid getting a strike for eating a chip is obviously less severe.

24-07-2005, 06:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,832 Party: Libertarian Party	My biggest problem is I hate to think kids deserve the same treatment as adults. If this was a fully grown man, I wouldn't care so much. I just know kids make mistakes as the grow up and I wonder if Zero tollerance on all occasions should apply, or whether some sound judegment from our frontline police may be a better choice. This may mean certain little brats do gate the ZT treatment, but a severe ticking off would be more than adequate for others. I hate set procedures, when human common sense can be a better option. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

25-07-2005, 12:54 PM	#8 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,832 Party: Libertarian Party	I don't reall prefer either, but the kid getting a strike for eating a chip is obviously less severe. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24-07-2005, 05:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,704	Yes. She won't do it again. Zero tolerance means - Oh! Zero tolerance. No-one ever is served one french fry. It means she managed to eat one frennch fry from the packet she was holding I would presume. The law says no eating. She ate. They booked her. Whats the problem?

24-07-2005, 06:23 PM	#5 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,140 Party: None	I actually think that this is probably a very good example of zero-tolerance working. How many people are going to risk eating on the subway now? The real question is whether we want a society that treats people so badly, which is your objection I think Matt, and I agree. Zero tolerance may work in terms of ending breaches of the law, but it also creates a litigation nightmare police-state.

25-07-2005, 11:00 AM	#7 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,704	Young Girl. One chip. Broke the law. Got booked. Unlikely to do again. Contrast with: Brazilian man. One jacket. Ran Away. Got Shot. Can't do it again. Which do you prefer?