Sir, - As a former resident of New York, I have the impression that the debate on Zero Tolerance policing is being conducted in generalisations.
Prior to zero tolerance, New York was plagued by petty transgressions conducted in full public view. They included, in some areas, street prostitution and open small scale drug dealing; aggressive and intimidating begging methods; men urinating openly in public places; large numbers of homeless people sleeping in doorways, even in attractive neighbourhoods; and widespread public littering. It was felt that these transgressions undermined respect for law and created a sleazy atmosphere conducive to more serious crime.
Once the police were persuaded by Mayor Giuliani's government that such transgressions were worthy of attention, that in itself was almost sufficient to put a stop to them, or at least to remove them from public view. New York began to feel a lot safer, an important improvement in the quality of life, given that many people are afraid to go out after dusk. In the case of the homeless, bending regulations on the creation of homeless shelters contributed more to solving the problem than police action.
Around the same time, New York's police also mounted a very aggressive and successful campaign against serious crime. At the level of police precincts, manpower was concentrated on the highest crime areas, using readily available software to map crime daily by city block. Precinct captains were held accountable for results.
Does zero tolerance have lessons for us? No doubt most people would want the police to show minimal tolerance for the transgressions described above. While the scarcity and cost of prison spaces and court delays now inhibit policing, nevertheless fines or very short stays in jail, even as little as a few hours, should be effective deterrents for petty crime. Only persistent offenders need receive long sentences. Incredibly, stay at home curfews, a proven low cost form of imprisonment, have not yet been tried. And if the courts are clogged, that suggests the need to develop a more effective New York style plea bargaining system, in which draconian sentences are given for wasting the courts previous time. - Yours, etc.,