|
I hate to agree with this side of this debate, but I have to.
If you don't mean business, no one will ever stop targeting you for crimes. Kick some ass, and crime
will stop.
Bullies are really cowards. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a true fact that if the Government can take the bold step of “zero tolerance” law, the
crime rates must be reduced in numbers. But till the date the zero tolerance law has not been
applied to any of the criminals. The meaning of the zero tolerance should be kept in the mind. That
is if a drug peddler got arrested, he must be executed and all the drugs would then be taken from
him. The zero tolerance law would put him into the treatment schedule to wipe out the drugs from the
people’s mind. Every single penny should be detained from him and after that he would be applied
to treatment programs as well as enforcement. But where is the bold heart of the highest authority
to take the step? This step must be taken for that it would reduce the crimes for sure. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There are very few zero tolerance laws that are taken to their logical conclusions. Zero tolerance,
if you're going to do it, needs to mean zero tolerance. In the case of drug dealing, for example, a
true zero tolerance law would execute the dealer, take all of the drugs and put them into treatment
programs to wean people off of drugs and take every cent that individual had and apply them to both
treatment programs and enforcement.
America doesn't have the stomach for true zero tolerance, we just like declaring war on things. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think this has to be correct.
If people who commit crimes are dealt with too leniently there is no deterrent against re-offending.
Even when there are deterrents people re-offend so something has to be done to stop this.
I don't think that prison for minor offences solves anything but some form of 'punishment' has to be
in place.
I do not believe that capital punishment was ever a deterrent either and would never want to see
that reintroduced again in the UK.
The media is full of reports on the rise in violent crime ,gun crime and youth crime. Young people
should named and face their punishment whatever their ages.
Something has to be done to get to the root causes of this and the best way to deal with it. No
tolerance has to be shown for extreme crime - to protect the rest of society.
If this means life imprisonment , it should be for life to protect others no mater what the
financial burden. For those who do offend and re-offend , they should have the chance to make
something of their lives.
Some people have very little chance from birth and it would be better to improve the lot of all
members of society from birth. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Punishments too lenient |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I strongly agree that the crime rate is rising in the US due to the fact that there are not strong
punishments for first time offender or for juvenile offenders. Today, a lot of the crime in the US
is committed by adolescents who are under 21 years old. These kids are not afraid to commit a crime
because they know as minor that they will not receive a harsh punishment. Drug use, assault, rape,
and alcohol related accidents are the crime areas that are quickly rising in the US due to more and
more young people committing them. I believe that if a juvenile commits a crime, then they should be
punished as an adult. They know what they are doing and usually become repeat offenders because the
first time was not handled harsh enough. I also believe that first time offenders should not be let
off easy either. My philosophy is that if you did the crime, then do the crime. Who cares if you
are young or it was your first time. You did it, then you pay for. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Prevention is the best way to prevent crime..period.. Inner cities have huge recreational and art
programs for kids... Much better than twenty/thirty years ago... There has been significant drops in
crime due to these efforts...It's the twenties...that need more positive outlets...Clubs, alcohol,
cocaine... The lures are much greater.... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Crime rates have fallen in the UK in recent years. No tolerance policing will just fill the prison
cells with reformable people and turn them into reoffenders as there will be too many prisoners for
staff to rehabilitate, therefore creating an American like gang culture |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I do not think it will, i think it will increase the number of people in prisons, not helping with
the jail crowding, and dangerous people being let out early due to the fact that there is no space
or resources to keep them |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with mackenzie. Further, i think that zero tolerance becomes associated with zero potential
or zero chance. While zero tolerance dances well in the conservative's mind, conservatives don't
tend to have very fluid imaginations. When people in bad situations hear zero tolerance they aren't
swept from their situation.
Rather, they anticipate getting arrested and thrown into a system that will have zero tolerance for
their very life, not differentiating their lifestyle and life choices from their actual lives. It's
all so interconnected to the economy and education but if we can focus on just imprisonment... Zero
tolerance policy does not mean anything that it implies. What i mean by this is that police and
prisons will do what they feel they have to do.
Any given area knows their correlation to police. When a cop pulls me over i know whether he's
likely to give me a ticket or not but i also know, absolutely KNOW, I am never going to be put in
the position to be under the question of misconduct. That does not mean that those being surveyed
are to blame for their surveillance. However, there is definite value in guilt by association,
primarily that people concerned about bettering their life should distance themselves from the
source of that social doubt and recognize the ramifications of being around whatever
surroundings.
Zero tolerance dismisses the chance of people trying to better themselves the chance to learn from
life experience. It takes on a paranoid subconscious that things must be dealt with and they must
be dealt with now. When in fact things are being dealt with it just makes certain people feel
better to think they are the ones taking care of it. Helps secure the illusion of being aligned
with something. It's very easy to believe in nonsense, and everyone deserves the chance to be
rehabilitated from nonsense's clutches.
Nonsense has much to teach in a classroom on a bridge I'd like to sell you. Tolerate that. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
There has long been a debate about whether the justice system should put an emphasis on punishment
or reform, when it comes to dealing with criminals. I tend to think that reforming the habits of
those who have committed crimes is more effective than locking them away in prison for long periods
of time.
I doubt that stiffer punishments would somehow deter people from engaging in illegal activity. A
good example is the United States, which punishes criminals in the most severe manner of any western
democracy, by imposing consecutive life sentences, the death penalty, etc. Despite this approach,
most large American cities are far more dangerous than European or Canadian ones. After all, those
who commit crimes usually believe that they will not get caught and are less worried about the
consequences. Nevertheless, if we place the emphasis on reforming the habits of these people
(through mandatory participation in correctional programs) we can ensure that they do not pose a
risk to society in any way, once they are released. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
18 Jan 2008 16:43
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
