If I had it my way, I would tone down the zero tolerance act. It
just punishes too harshly for some things. I think that it needs
to distinguish the difference between minor problems, like playing
with a toy gun, and major problems, like having drugs.
Zero Tolerance
The zero tolerance policies call for students to receive automatic
suspensions or expulsions as punishment for certain offenses,
primarily those involving weapons, threats, or drugs. I agree that
safety is an important concern in schools, but sometimes the zero
tolerance policy is taken too far. It is as if administrators don’t
distinguish between minor and major discretions.
I do believe that students who get in fights or who bring drugs into
school should be punished. However, a third grader who shouts “b...
...ne point I was told, ‘If you don’t like it, then change the law.’ And that’s what I did.”
and hopefully not re-offend because of the goal of reducing recidivism that AB 109 has.
Looking back on my own educational experience the words, “zero tolerance” vaguely strike a chord. If I am not mistaken I believe that our district adopted the zero tolerance policy between my junior and senior year (96/97-97/98 respectfully) as a means to hinder bullying/violence among the students. As I consider my years in high school I do not recall violence being a normal occurrence, with the exception of your random argument turned, “meet me at short stop,” dispute, nor do I remember drugs being a large concern among parents and/or school personnel. Perhaps I was naïve or maybe it turns out that it just wasn’t something to be considered a problem. There is an exception to every rule; however, I trust that during my high school career violence and drug abuse and its distribution was not the norm…
As our current system of laws exists, a single idea for a law can be applied differently to each individual state. Interpretations, enforcement, and the consequences of the law can vary within the United States as each separate state is allowed to create their independent laws as long as they remain constitutional and meet the federal minimum consequences. They must follow federal law but are allowed to implement new ones as they see necessary. With laws differing across the country, one might propose establishing a selection of uniform rules to erase variations and standardize our limitations. The question then becomes whether or not this would be beneficial or detrimental to our society. I believe that this decision would have more negative connotations than positive ones.
My first proposal that I would recommend would be to legalize minor drugs, such as marijuana and cocaine, those drugs should be removed from the criminal-justice system and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. The criminalization of marijuana and cocaine disproportionately harms young people and people of color, besides it sponsors massive levels of violence and corruption. Furthermore, it adds up to the mass incarceration problem. “Erwin Chemerinsky, points out” Michelle Alexander wrote, Mandatory sentencing laws were frequently justified as necessary to keep “Violent criminals” off the streets, yet those penalties are imposed most often against drug offenders and those who are guilty of nonviolent crimes...” (91). In agreement
Criminals in the United States often get an unfair prison sentence due to the current imperfect system. The laws and guidelines that are used to determine an offender 's sentence are greatly flawed. Some crimes are much more severe than others; therefore using the same rules and regulations for all crimes as if they are all the same is unfitting. A drug dealer, a murder, and a fraudster could receive the same amount of prison time which is clearly unfair and unreasonable. Changing the guidelines that are followed would be lawful and the morally right thing to do.
This report will review and explore the various uses of the zero tolerance plan and its applications throughout schools in American society. There will be a study on the effectiveness of zero tolerance, an outline of the pros and cons of its usage, an evaluation of a case scenario as it pertains to the utilization of this policy, and a plan of action in formulating a sound disposition. The stakeholders’ perception will be reviewed and how they are impacted in these decisions will be demonstrated. The detailing of the pros and cons of a desired plan of action in response to the situation and the examination of the effectiveness of a zero tolerance policy, will allow for an investigation into the possible outcomes of court rulings in regards to the case. It will also allow for a deeper inspection into the research of the moral and ethical implications of an expulsion due to a violation of a zero tolerance policy.
The minimum sentencing regarding drug crimes should be reduced because it negatively impacts everyone involved and is an unjust punishment across the board. I will discuss how the War on Drugs came about, how the current system for these crimes is racist and classist, the negative impacts that come from it across the board, the prison overcrowding issues, and how the minimum sentencing policy is ineffective. No matter how you look at it this issue, one wins in this situation and it’s time for a change.
Michigan schools have one of the highest rates of expulsion and suspension due to the zero tolerance law. However, come August 2017 this will be changing, and schools will need to accommodate to the new law. The new law that was passed unanimously by Michigan’s legislature modifies the zero tolerance law in schools state wide. Districts will be required to consider multiple factors before expelling or suspending a student. What this mean is that schools may have to change their school code of conducts.
The punishment does not always fit the crime. Zero tolerance policies began as a way to protect children from potentially violent situation. Over the years, these policies designed to protect are now doing more harm than good. Children are being punished for simply being children. Zero tolerances policies need to be replaced because these harsh policies have resulted in an increasing number of suspensions, many students harshly punished for minimal offenses, and these policies have a negative impact on students.
...nvironment instead of a temporary foster home or orphanage. Children would get the love they deserve and gays would get the family they deserve. Being different is always a bad thing; you can’t help who you love so why be punished for it?
Society has long since operated on a system of reward and punishment. That is, when good deeds are done or a person behaves in a desired way they SP are rewarded, or conversely punished when behaviour does not meet the societal norms. Those who defy these norms and commit crime are often punished by organized governmental justice systems through the use of penitentiaries, where prisoners carry out their sentences. The main goals of sentencing include deterrence, safety of the public, retribution, rehabilitation, punishment and respect for the law (Government of Canada, 2013). However, the type of justice system in place within a state or country greatly influences the aims and mandates of prisons and in turn targets different aspects of sentencing goals. Justice systems commonly focus on either rehabilitative or retributive measures.
Any crime motivated by a bias against a person or group based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion or another characteristic is a hate crime. These crimes can either be committed against the people themselves or their property. When someone commits a hate crime they are targeting a group of people not just one individual. That’s why hate crimes have extra punishment. The punishment for hate crimes are very insignificant considering the deviant who committed a hate crime targeted an entire group of people. Hate crimes are very serious offensive but determining where to draw the line can be difficult. Hate crimes are very serious and can have lasting effects on victims.
very strong policies on small "deviations" and things that do not follow there norm. If not
School System As mentioned previously, the school system has a perceived obligation to discipline students in an attempt to protect the safety of all staff and students, to preserve the decorum of the school, and also to develop character in students (Kajs, 2006). It is these three notions, along with the public’s perception of the rising issue of youth crime, and federal and provincial legislation that led to the implementation of zero tolerance policies. There are arguably three stages of the zero tolerance policies: there must be a perceived issue by the public, which creates a moral panic and leads to the government taking action to calm the situation by creating legislation and lastly, the school board implementing the regulations and changes. A qualitative study was conducted by Daniel and Bondy (2008) concerning several school’s opinions on zero tolerance policies and the Safe Schools Act.