South University Richmond
Zero Tolerance was first defined as the enforced suspension and expulsion of policies in response to weapons, violent acts and drugs in a school setting. Zero Tolerance has since come to refer to school or district wide policies that mandate harsh consequences or punishments for various rule violations. Regularly, zero tolerance policies pertain to drugs, weapons, violence, smoking and disruption in an attempt to protect student’s safety and maintain an environment conducive to learning. Some teachers and staff are in favor of zero tolerance because they believe it will filter the bad student’s out of the school. They believe it sends a clear and concise message that ill-advised behaviors are not going to be tolerated in the school system. However, research indicates that zero tolerance policies are ineffective over time and are related to several negative consequences such as; drop outs, disciplinary infractions. Data from the U.S. Department of Education and the Center for Safe and Responsive Schools state that a minimum of seventy five percent of schools reporting having zero tolerance policies for offenses such as;
Weapons other than firearms- 91%
It is evident in New York where last year fifty thousand people (one every ten minutes) were arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Stop and frisk- Under the Terry ruling (1968), police officers are allowed to stop and detain an individual based on reasonable suspicion. And if the police suspect that the person is armed and dangerous, they may also frisk the individual for weapons. The police officer runs his hands across the individual’s outer clothing to see if the individual has a concealed weapon. The stop and frisk is one of the most controversial procedures police conduct. It’s a limited search done with the intent of preventing a crime before it takes place based on the person’s suspicious behavior. Stop and frisk had been a long practice of the police and it wasn’t until 1968 that the Supreme Court evaluated it under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against reasonable search and seizures. Under Fourth Amendment law, a search and seizure must be based on Probable Cause while a stop and frisk was usually conducted based on a reasonable suspicion which is a lower standard than probable cause. Stop and frisk is a law enforcement officer's search for a weapon that can be found on a suspect's outer clothing when they notice either a bulge in the clothing or the outline of the weapon is visible. The search is called a "pat down," and any further search requires either a search warrant or "probable cause" to believe the suspect will commit or has committed a crime (including carrying a concealed weapon, which itself is a crime without a permit to carry). The limited right to "stop and frisk" is intended to halt the practice of random searches of people in hopes of finding evidence of criminal activity or merely for purposes of intimidation, particularly of minorities.
"Mosque crawling" (undercover surveillance of city mosques). NYPD dispatches teams of undercover officers also known as “rakers” into minority neighborhoods. They monitor the daily operations of bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. The police have also used informants who are also known as “Mosque Crawlers” to record events and monitor sermons. And they perform these acts even when there is no evidence of foul play. NYPD has gathered evidence on cab drivers, food cart vendors and any other job often held by a Muslim.
•Analyze whether these programs have been effective. To do this, you will need to locate crime statistics for New York City and determine whether crime and terrorism have increased or decreased.
For the first half of 1997, New York City was ranked 150th out of 189 cities that have populations in excess