Zero Tolerance

[Daggertooth]

I know many people are paranoid of this and all that, but this is the most BS policy I've ever heard of. It's bugged me ever since I heard of that case of a elementary school kid being expelled for a toy GI joe gun. And it pisses me off every time I hear of another case.
Sure there are dangers, but it's idiotic to stricktly adhere to a policy when the situation is common sence. Such as the teen who got expelled for a bread knife. Since when did common sence take a back seat to regulations. Especialy in situations obviously this innocent. Bah!


Daggertooth

 

[Ransac]

I agree. Zero Tolerance is getting way out of control.



Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Spiderman]

Well, I admit that it seems a little lacking in common sense. But has there been ANY cases where it turned out to be justified? In other words, has someone taken an "innocently looking" object that passed inspection and used it in a crime?

 

[Daggertooth]

Well, when it's a toy GI joe Gun....or even a butter knife, I really think that common sence should be able to intervene. Sure there are situations that might make use of the policy. But to harmfully effect the education of these kids on something this bogus is just rediculous.

Daggertooth

 

[Spiderman]

Well, how do you know where it stops? It could be toy gun today, real one tomorrow. Perhaps the first is just a test case to see if it will be discovered, and since it's a toy the kid will know that he can't get into any trouble anyway.

And you can't really take age into account; kids that do "bad stuff" are getting younger every day. Just this week I read an article about a group (5?) of 10-12 year olds, male and female, tricked their way into an apartment and molested the female residents there. So how do you know where to stop?

 

[Daggertooth]

And if its some accessory to a toy for show and tell?

Since when did common sence become something of the past. Sure theres the possibility the Kid was going to stab the school with his butter knife but was there any real threat?

These things should really be treated case by case. Just because there are so many other facters. But again, I really think some things are just common sence.

And I really don't think the idea of treating everyone as a potential criminal is the right way to go. People are already paranoid enough, they don't need the addition of looking over their back for any child with a "weapon" that might range from plastic, toothpics, to blunt "knives". Might as well be scared of spoons.


Daggertooth

 

[Spiderman]

Well, let me ask you this: is it absolutely necessary to have the accessory? And is it absolutely necessary to bring in that toy in the first place if it requires that accessory?

You can see common sense disappearing all over the place due to the prolific types of lawsuits being filed. The person winning the McDonald's case of not being warned that her coffee was hot is a prime example.

Other obvious examples are those warnings and disclaimers you see on products ("Petroleum jelly: Do not eat this").

So common sense has been absent for a while...

 

[Daggertooth]

No, but then is it absolutly nessisary to be so strict without any chance for an apeal?

There are situations that warrent a bit of common sence, and it does make me mad that it's not taken. Obviously a person totin a plastic 1in Gun should not be punished the same as someone sporting a real gun. What if the death penalty was assigned to anyone who broke any kind of law? You just don't treat shoplifters the same as Murderers. The same goes with anything. Thats why No tolerance is bad.

And those common sence labels are only because in this state any idiot can win.


I'm currious, are you arguing for the sake of providing the other point? or are you really in support of no tolerance?

Daggertooth

 

[Spiderman]

No, like I said in my first post, it probably can be looked at. I'm just saying that there might be more behind the policy than you might think (though I for one am not privy to such details). Obviously the best way to find out WHY a policy like that exists (aside from the obvious of no weapons or weapon-like stuff around) is to ask the people who are in charge WHY it exists (or at least it's a starting point).

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Zero Tolerance policies are foolish, spare officials the inconvenience of actually having to think, and deprive American citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to Due Process.

It's quite stupid that this kid, who has never received so much as detention, and is a member of the school's swim team with plans on going to college (possibly on swimming scholarship) has been expelled from school. His options, unless an appeal is successful, are to attend a "refrom school" for violent troubled teens, or to have his family take on the expense of attending a private school.

Particularly when you consider that the bread knife ended up in the bed of his pickup after it fell out of one of several boxes that was being delivered to a charity the previous night, you can see that this kid is going to have his life derailed over what is evidently an innocent accident occuring during a charitable act.

Spiderman asks, "But has there been ANY cases where it turned out to be justified?"

I'm sure there have. But I suggest simply that these instances be handled on a case-by-case basis. It may not be convenient, but it is certainly more fair. Any time where there is a single mandatory punishment for an infraction, regardless of the intent or severity, the rights of citizens are going to be abrogated.

 

[Spiderman]

Zero Tolerance policies are foolish, spare officials the inconvenience of actually having to think, and deprive American citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to Due Process.

Hmm, a rather bold statement. May I ask how you arrived at this conclusion?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

"Zero Tolerance policies are foolish"

This is my opinion. I think that official policies which substitute a rigid predetermined response for judgement based upon the facts of a particular case is foolish.

Imagine if there were a Zero-Tolerance policy for traffic violations. Any violation of traffic laws, intentional or not, from failing to use your turn signal to reckless driving, would result in a mandatory suspension of your driver's license for a year. Now imagine some relative is having a medical emergency, and you are rushing him or her to the emergency room. Cop sees you and, "Well I'm awfully sorry. I can see you're having an emergency here, but as you know there is a mandatory suspension of your driver's license for speeding."

Absurd? Unlikely? Things like this happen all the time. A teenage girl gives her friend a Tylenol and gets the boot for "drug distribution," including having the cops called on her. Yes, this has really happened.

"<Zero tolerance policies> spare officials the inconvenience of actually having to think, and deprive American citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed right to Due Process."

An extrapolated opinion based upon some comments made in this article: http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/2877827.htm

Some more information on the failure of zero tolerance policies:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/08/29/zero_tolerance/

http://www.ztnightmares.com/ (links to a number of articles detailing zero tolerance "nightmares")

http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed451579.html (a more even-handed but cursory examination)

http://home.earthlink.net/~jhholly/zerotolerance.html (a dry but informative review of cases where courts have upheld zero tolerance related punishments)

These links should provide a range of information both supporting and unsupporting of my opinions. A little effort could surely uncover plenty more. Feel free to form your own opinions.*

Note my current sig.

(*This statement is not directed at anyone in particular, but to everyone reading the post.)

 

[Mr_Pestilence]

This is what happens when paranoia meets bureaucracy.

When I was in high school, just about every guy carried a pocket knife (to look cool when cleaning under his fingernails, of course), and half of the trucks in the student parking lot had hunting rifles in their gun racks.

Total number of violent incidents involving said guns and knives during 4 years of high school: 0.

To quote, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups".

 

[Apollo]

Last year, a friend of mine was helping his grandpa trim some of the trees in his back yard. He used his pocket knife, and stuck it in his jeans pocket when he left. The next day, he wore those jeans to school. When he realized he had it, he took it out and stuck it in his locker. A teacher saw it, and with the school's zero tolerance policy, my friend was suspended for 3 days. This was a little swiss army knife that couldn't have hurt anyone, and he never even took it out in class. Zero tolerance policies are idiotic.

CT put it very well; zero tolerance is an excuse not to think. Rather than risk the slightest bit of criticism for making a thought-out decision, scared teachers can hide behind the policy. No matter if the decision is right, or fits the crime; as long as teachers can avoid the blame, it's all good.

 

[Spiderman]

Thanks for the links, Chaos Turtle, I'll try to get to them later this week (since it's Monday and I'm still catching up).

So does this extend to our current airline security regulations? No nail files or little scissors or whatever? And how many of you thought before 9/11 that box cutters would be used as a weapon?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

Originally posted by Spiderman
Thanks for the links, Chaos Turtle, I'll try to get to them later this week (since it's Monday and I'm still catching up).

So does this extend to our current airline security regulations? No nail files or little scissors or whatever? And how many of you thought before 9/11 that box cutters would be used as a weapon?

You're welcome. It was my pleasure; I learned lots of new things while tracking down and reading those.

But the airline analogy does not quite fit. If you accidentally leave a nail file in your checked luggage, you are not likely to be banned from flying on airplanes for a year. Worst case scenario is that your luggage is not put on the plane.

Even if you have it on your person or in your carry-on baggage, what happens? It gets taken away, you may be detained for a little while for some questioning, but in all you've probably just wasted some time.

I was surprised that box cutters were permitted on the aircraft to begin with. I've known for years that the can be used as weapons. When I heard that box cutters were used in the hijacking of the planes, I wondered how they got on the plane in the first place.

I also don't think that students need to be bringing box cutters to class with them. But a box cutter left in your vehicle is not a valid reason to be expelled from school.

 

[Spiderman]

You're right, it doesn't quite fit.

What about that guy who ran through a security checkpoint while trying to catch his plane for some sports event? Was he banned or just had to pay a fine? Or does this even fit since he wasn't carrying a weapon (as it turned out)?

 

[Chaos Turtle]

You're talking about Michael lasseter, who forgot his camera bag after he'd already been through a security checkpoint, went back for it, and decided to evade the security checkpoint rather than go through it a second time. In the process, he went up an escalator (intended for disembarking passengers) and allegedly shoved a security guard who tried to stop him.

The extenuating circumstances in this case are that he had already been through the checkpoint, that going through the checkpoint would have (he believed) caused him to miss his flight, and that his son was on the plane (but not alone, with an uncle).

He was fined $3,300 by the FAA for "reckless conduct." Other charges carried a maximum penalty of 2 years in jail and a $2,000 fine.

Considering that about 10,000 passengers had to be disembarked and put through security checks again, and that many flights were diverted, delayed, or cancelled during the 3-hour lockdown, I'd say that this nimrod -- if he was found guilty, I never heard whether he was -- is getting at least what he deserves.

Note however that he was not banned from flying for any amount of time, though AirTran Airways, Inc. did file a lawsuit against him for the resulting financial loss.

An appropriate punishment, in my opinion.

Trivia note: This incident occurred at the Atlanta Hartsfield airport, and was responsible for a number of Pro Magic players being late for (or missing entirely) Grand Prix Atlanta last November.

 

[Spiderman]

I knew he got fined but didn't know if he got banned or not.

Welp, guess I can't think of a parallel situation right now. And still haven't gotten to your links, especially since I was out sick yesterday. Will do so soon though

 

[Chaos Turtle]

As an additional note, I wouldn't be surprised if some business passengers who lost money as a result of his poorly conceived actions haul him into court as well.