Zero Tolerance Law Essay

For many years, drugs have been the center of crime and the criminal justice system in the United States. Due to this widespread epidemic, President Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” in 1971 with a campaign that promoted the prohibition of illicit substances and implemented policies to discourage the overall production, distribution, and consumption. The War on Drugs and the U.S. drug policy has experienced the most significant and complex challenges between criminal law and the values of today’s society. With implemented drug polices becoming much harsher over the years in order to reduce the overall misuse and abuse of drugs and a expanded federal budget, it has sparked a nation wide debate whether or not they have created more harm than good. When looking at the negative consequences of these policies not only has billions of dollars gone to waste, but the United States has also seen public health issues, mass incarceration, and violent drug related crime within the black market in which feeds our global demands and economy. With this failed approach for drug prohibition, there continues to be an increase in the overall production of illicit substances, high rate of violence, and an unfavorable impact to our nation.

Drugs have been known to be detrimental to American society. Commonly known as “ The war on drugs”. Majority of individuals who are incarcerated have been convicted of some type of drug offense and if not a drug related crimes. In many instances, a person can be sent to a jail or prison without receiving the required treatment to help the individual overcome their drug of choice. Remarkably, there is a court solely focused on an individual with a drug problem, which is known as Drug courts.

Many different states have begun sending nonviolent drug offenders to various kinds of drug treatment program the state offers. By doing this, it has significantly reduced the problems with overcrowding. If an individual is arrested and charged with simple possession of a drug and no other crime is being commented, then this person is doing no harm to anyone else. They should be given the opportunity to try and make a change in their life and beat the addiction. Instead, if this person is thrown into jail, they are still going to be an addict with a criminal record now and will not be able to be a contributing member of society. (Everett 1 ).

Zero Tolerance improves the standard of policing. It reduces corruption and racist treatment because the individual officers are not given the scope to decide their actions on a case by case basis. Their response is set and therefore cannot be changed by a personal whim. It also reduces the kind of gung-ho policing that is increasingly common. It takes officers out of their cars and places them back into the community where they have contact with individuals. Chases and shootouts actually become less common under zero tolerance (Dennis, page 37)

In 1996, Federal Legislation was put in place that banned former prisoners with drug convictions from using food stamps and allowed public housing authorities to ban drug convicts from staying in public housing (Race and the War on Drugs). This negatively impacts the former drug offenders because it provides another setback on top of the plethora of challenges that they already face when leaving prison, like finding a job where the employer accepts former criminals. Having all of these difficulties in readjusting to “regular” society, restrictions set in place by the government now make it harder for these drug users or sellers to remain out of prison. The issue with punishing drug use is that it does not attempt to end the problem permanently and turns to quick fixes instead of long term solutions like rehabilitation and in- prison drug therapy. The lack of desire to help these prisoners is evident in the dropping of in-prison drug therapy since 1991 “despite the fact that almost one in five people in state prisons on drug charges cite the need to pay for their drug habit as the reason for their offense,” (Race and the War on Drugs). The War on Drugs attempts to punish drug

With California jails and prisons still struggling with finding a reform for non-violent drug offenders the states recidivism rates continue to reach unprecedented numbers. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteen-fold, from over 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to almost 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This has been a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse related issues instead of providing a way for treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policies regarding criminal justice interventions that address drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services

Starting during the 1980s, when the State and Federal government were struggling to combat an extreme rise in drug use throughout the country, the “war on drugs” was declared by President Richard Nixon. “Zero tolerance” policies, “broken window” policing, and other unreasonably severe punishments were placed in society in order to barricade the dramatic influx of illegal drug use. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), these “‘one-strike’ policies and drug arrests now account for over a quarter of the 2.3 million people locked up in America.” These nonviolent drug offenders face sentences for

Drug addiction has increased drastically across America in the last fifty years. Non-violent drug offenders fill our jails and prisons. Taxpayer dollars are put into a prison system that is proving to be counter-productive. Recidivism rates are high. Drug Court is an alternative to incarceration that offers rehabilitation to criminal offenders. In drug court, the traditional functions of the U.S. justice system are profoundly altered. The judge is the leader of a treatment team. The judge makes all final decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom, including the type of treatment mandated and how to address

California has done its part by enacting most of the known effective DUI countermeasures. However, there is still much to be done and applying other countermeasures implemented in other states, such as the lower per se BAC level for repeat offenders, might be of benefit to California. The study of this report shows that the California Zero Tolerance Law has had a small marginal effect on the number of underage drinking drivers in fatal crashes. After the implementation of the law, a reduction in driving after drinking and alcohol-related crashes has been evident. However, a question remains as to whether a stronger enforcement can produce more substantial results. Nonetheless, there is evidence to suggest that legal changes have produced declines

This report starts off with an overview of drug courts are, then moves into the overall problem with drug control in the United States. They talk about the history and the rise in drug offenses during the 1980’s causing the prison populations to rise. When comparing the rise of drug offenses, they found it was both state and federal level. The growth of drug offenses became approximately one in every 198 persons was incarcerated. About nine years later, the first drug court was established. Courts, jails, and prisons were seeing a pattern with the number of low level repeat drug offenders and street dealers starting to cause problems with overcrowding . The drug court movement was a shift from law enforcement’s emphasis on reducing drug use.

In all grades of education, from kindergarten to college, there is a form of discipline known as a zero tolerance policy. While the exact wording is different from school to school, basically a zero tolerance policy means that a student is immediately suspended, asked to attend an alternative school, or expelled if they are suspected or caught doing certain things. These policies are in place to hopefully deter students from doing drugs or being violent, but the ethics behind them are questionable. Some research has shown that these policies may not even work, and other forms of discipline would be better suited to help students. The three main activities that result in the zero tolerance policy are being caught with drugs or alcohol,

More than 45 years ago President Richard Nixon announced and declared the nation is at war, that war was the "War on Drugs". Nancy Reagan campaigned heavily in the fight against drug use as well; her fight was that of teaching young children the slogan of “Just Say No”. The goals of the criminal justice system in the war on drugs have been a never ending fight against the sale of illicit drugs and that of combating drug abuse. We will discuss the increased resources spent on law enforcement and rehabilitation while making an attempt in understanding

The zero tolerance policy has become a national controversy in regards to the solid proven facts that it criminalizes children and seems to catch kids who have no intention of doing harm. Although, there has been substantial evidence to prove that the policies enforced in many schools have gone far beyond the extreme to convict children of their wrongdoing. The punishments for the act of misconduct have reached a devastating high, and have pointed students in the wrong direction. Despite the opinions of administrators and parents, as well as evidence that zero tolerance policies have deterred violence in many public and private schools, the rules of conviction and punishment are unreasonable and should be modified.

The so-called “War on Drugs,” as declared by the Nixon administration in the signing of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, marked the beginning of the current era of mandatory minimum sentencing, racism, privatized prisons, and a powerful constituency that profits as a result of the prohibition of drugs. Psychoactive substances have been apart of the human experience as long as humans have walked the earth. There is little hope that drug production will ever be curtailed, so long as there is a demand; a demand that has remained steady even though it has been forty years since the beginning of said war. As Judge James P. Gray from the Superior Court of Orange County has so plainly put it: “Where did this policy

Schools need to maintain a disciplined and safe learning environment. There are many disciplinary actions that are in use today and although some can disagree about the amount of discipline that is best for maturing children, it is reasonable to be in agreement that a positive learning environment begins with physical and emotional safety. School safety includes a broad range of matters, including, fighting, bullying, drugs, alcohol, weapons, and etc. Many schools use varying methods in an effort to maintain school safety. Some schools limit school access and require all visitors to sign in. Physical surveillance is another common method of addressing school safety issues along with use of staff and student identification. Among all these