Zero Tolerance

With harm minimisation failing to reduce both the use and effect of drugs, supporters of criminalisation believe that there should be a zero tolerance approach towards drug use. Some perceive that drug use and possession should not be tolerated at all.

Zero Tolerance is based on the theory that an individual who is intending, or at least willing, to commit a substantive or major crime is unlikely to baulk at committing trivial or preparatory crimes, and that dealing with each and every person committing minor or preparatory crimes is likely to reduce substantive or major crimes.

Zero tolerance, also known as “aggressive policing, is a strategy where police target minor crime in order to send a signal that such behaviour will not be tolerated in the community” (Roberg et al., 2005:123).

Zero tolerance policing is a means by which police can target particular offences in an effort to eradicate the behaviour or significantly diminish its associated harms (Grant & Terry, 2005:217). Although it is acknowledged that discretion is an essential tool in law enforcement, there are instances where ‘non- discretionary’ (Grant & Terry, 2005:217) policing is employed. The term ‘non- discretionary’ is often used when referring to zero tolerance policies as the discretionary powers entrusted in police are removed and police are therefore required to arrest all offenders involved in the targeted offences (Grant & Terry, 2005:217).

Broken windows theory, introduced by Wilson and Kelling (1982 cited in Roberg et al., 2005:122), explores the notion that an aggressive line of policing minor criminal offences can assist in reducing the likelihood of more serious offences occurring. They argue that “when signs of disorder are ignored, incidents of violence and delinquency will erupt and become serious crime problems” (Wilson and Kelling cited in Roberg et al., 2005:122). In contrast, Harcourt (2001 cited in Roberg et al., 2005:123) believes that broken windows theory is yet to be empirically verified. He argues that many cities that have not implemented zero tolerance policies have experienced considerable declines in crime (Harcourt 2001 cited in Roberg et al., 2005:123).

Although effective in its objectives, it could be argued that zero tolerance does not work for drug offenders, particularly illicit drug users. As discussed,

dependency drives users to continue to commit drug-related offences such as use, possession and, in some cases cultivation, therefore rendering zero tolerance ineffective (Fox & Mathews, 1992:13; Goode, 1997:37; Durrant & Thakker, 2003:180–181). Furthermore, other so-called minor offences, such as shoplifting, are also committed by drug offenders in order to survive or fund their habit. It is not uncommon for drug users to steal foodstuffs in order to obtain sustenance and to steal any item that they believe they can sell easily for money towards their ‘next fix’ (Porter, 2001:8). According to Roberg et al. (2005:123), it is due to such dependencies that no amount of ‘aggressive policing’ will deter drug users from using or committing property offences in order to support their habits. Physical and psychological dependency causes or drives users to offend rather than a need or wish to be deviant.

Furthermore, zero tolerance does not allow for the identification of individual community needs. Strategies such as local priority policing (LPP) (as recently implemented by Victoria Police) aim to identify individual law enforcement needs within individual communities. Community concerns can be addressed through LPP, however zero tolerance applies the law equally in all environments regardless of the needs identified by the community (Roberg et al., 2005:124). For example, where a community may be plagued by drug-related crime, another may have relatively few drug-related crime issues and a zero tolerance approach would be of no benefit.

It could be argued that zero tolerance sends a powerful message to the community that certain behaviour is not tolerated and therefore deters the community from committing particular offences. However, recent events reported in the Australian media raise questions about how successful zero

tolerance is in deterring offenders. An example of this is the 2005 hanging of Australian Van Nguyen in Singapore for attempting to smuggle almost 400 grams of heroin into Singapore (ABC News Online, 2005; Hogan, Cooke & Butcher, 2005). Currently the penalty for drug smuggling in Singapore is a mandatory death penalty, yet such penalties failed to deter Nguyen (NSW Council for Civil Liberties, 2008). Another example, prominent in the media, is the case of the Bali nine, who were arrested by Bali officials for attempting to smuggle 8 kilograms of heroin worth $4 million out of Bali into Australia (ABC Behind the News, 2006). In this case there are claims of duress, which perhaps could reasonably explain the actions of some of the alleged offenders, but it is evident that the threat of the death penalty was not enough to deter the nine.

The zero tolerance approach is strongly rejected by former Victoria Police Commissioner Neil Comrie (1999:50). Comrie acknowledges there are instances where vigorous targeting of offences is required as the only response to particular offences, but zero tolerance is not a strategy that complements Victoria Police practices (Comrie, 1999:50). Like other law enforcement agencies within Australia, Comrie argues that the only appropriate means of dealing with problem areas of law enforcement is “problem solving through partnerships with the community and relevant organisations” (Comrie, 1999:50). Comrie’s belief in the legitimate use of police discretion and the ability for police to build strong meaningful partnerships with the community saw the introduction of harm reduction and diversion strategies (Comrie, 1999:50) and led to implementation of the Victoria Police CCP and DDP.