Zero Tolerance Policing a Comparative

Zero Tolerance Policing A Comparative Analysis of Policing Strategies The second half of the 20th century in particular saw the development of several conflicting philosophies of policing. Though each of these philosophies has at the heart of it the betterment and safety of citizens and the effectiveness and fulfillment of police officers, they differ in their ideas about the root of crime and the role of the police force in preventing or stopping it.

The drastic drop in New York City's crime rate in the mid-1990s brought into the spotlight one of the more controversial of these philosophies: zero-tolerance policing. An article in the Atlantic Monthly by J.Q. Wilson and G.L. Kelling (1982) described zero-tolerance policing using a "broken window" analogy.

Essentially, just as a broken window in a building signals neglect and invites plundering, so petty crimes in neighborhoods and communities signal a lack of law enforcement in the area and create a climate conducive to more serious infractions (Kelling and Bratton, 1998). Zero-tolerance policing seeks to eliminate the culture of serious crime by eradicating the climate of petty crime that fosters it through disciplined, organized, and absolutely consistent enforcement of the law.

On the surface, this type of policing seems to stand in contrast to the more philosophically open systems of policing developed in the 1970s. The struggles for civil rights in the 1960s had created a tense relationship between police and communities, and in response both criminologists and police departments sought new approaches to police work. Two of the policing philosophies that stemmed from this movement were problem-oriented policing and community policing. Though the two philosophies are closely linked and sometimes practiced concurrently, they are distinguished by subtle differences.

The broader of these two systems is problem-oriented policing. In tracing the development of the problem-oriented approach, Herman Goldstein indicated that the defining characteristic of problem-oriented policing is a fundamental understanding that the reason for the police system is societal problems, and thus the main objective of policing should be to alleviate and eradicate these problems. These problems are wide-ranging and complex, and they have fallen to police mainly, Goldstein claims, "because no other means has been found to solve them" (Goldstein, 1979, p. 243).

Eck and Spelman (1987) isolate three main characteristics of problem-oriented policing: defining problems using situational descriptors instead of generic terms, gathering information from throughout the community, and seeking solutions beyond the traditional justice system. These characteristics often require officers, their managers, and their departments to develop different views of themselves and their jobs. In order to adopt a problem-solving approach to policing, many departments find that they need to restructure their internal hierarchy, both in attitude and in practice.

Traditionally, departments have been structured around a rigid chain of command with a clear demarcation of authority. The broad demands of the problem-oriented approach, however, require a large amount of flexibility and discretion on the part of individual officers. Thus many departments find that, in order to be effective problem-solving units, they must "decentralize" decision-making and put the bulk of it into the hands of the officers, not the management (Eck & Spelman, 1987, p. 47). Community policing is similar to problem-oriented policing in many ways.

Community policing seeks to implement specific policing techniques to strengthen ties and forge a cooperative spirit between communities and their police forces. As with problem-oriented policing, community policing seeks to dislodge officers from the traditional role of "law enforcement" and empower them with the ability to seek and make lasting changes in their communities. In reviewing some of the studies done on the impact of community policing on officers' attitudes, Lurigio and Rosenbaum (1994) isolated many of the specific techniques used in community policing programs.

These programs are generally marked by the use of foot patrols to engage with citizens and establish a tangible presence, storefront police stations providing visibility and accessibility to the public, and the use of targeted police units designed to develop roots and tailor themselves to the specific communities they serve. Like problem-oriented policing, community policing often requires a fundamental change in both the attitude and organization of police departments. As Dennis Nowicki (1997) points out, these changes are often difficult to implement consistently.

The empowerment need by individual officers to adapt to individual situations within their community "clearly runs counter to the paramilitary structure of police agencies" (Nowicki, 1997, p. 365). In addition, the establishment of close ties between communities and their police forces does leave the door open for potential corruption and manipulation by special interest groups. Though community policing is essentially a brand of problem-oriented policing, the two are not completely synonymous. One key difference can be found just by looking at their labels.

Community policing is focused, of course, on communities, and therefore on the problems and solutions specific to communities. Problem-oriented policing, however, seeks to address problems beyond and sometimes independent of the communities themselves. Problem-oriented policing is "a state of mind, and not a program, technique, or procedure" (Eck & Spelman, 1986, p. 46), whereas community policing consists of specific actions designed to facilitate problem-solving within populations. How, then, does zero-tolerance policing compare to these other approaches? It depends largely on how zero-tolerance policing is practiced and what end it serves.

Some see zero-tolerance as "zero thinking" and diametrically opposed to both the spirit and practice of problem-oriented approaches (Nowicki, 1997, p. 366). Its.