Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[der Wandersmann]

Both of the following paragraphs are from "This Is True":

ZERO TOLERANCE, CAREGIVER DIVISION: The first Sally Harpold knew there
  was a problem was when sheriff's deputies showed up at her home in
  Clinton, Ind., with a warrant for her arrest. But the evidence was
  clear: four months before, her husband had gotten a cold, and she went
  to the drugstore and got him some over-the-counter cold medicine. A few
  days later her daughter caught the cold, so Harpold stopped at another
  drugstore and got her some medicine too. Once the purchase paperwork
  was matched up, authorities realized she had committed the crime of
  buying 3.6 grams of pseudoephedrine, an ingredient of crystal meth, but
  also a common decongestant for runny noses. "The law does not make this
  distinction," says Vermillion County Prosecutor Nina Alexander. "I'm
  simply enforcing the law as it was written." State law limits purchases
  to 3.0 grams in any 7-day period. Harpold was taken away in handcuffs,
  and her local newspaper ran her mug shot on the front page with the
  headline, "17 Arrested in Drug Sweep". She faces up to 60 days in jail
  and a $500 fine. "It's unfortunate," said Vigo County Sheriff Jon
  Marvel, whose deputies made the arrest. "But for the good of everyone,
  the law was put into effect." (Terre Haute Tribune-Star) ...Not
  "everyone" agrees, sheriff.

ZERO TOLERANCE, BABYSITTER DIVISION: Lisa Snyder lives near a school bus
  stop in Middleville, Mich. A couple of neighbors need to head for work
  before the bus arrives, so Snyder said she would be happy to keep an
  eye on their kids until the bus arrives. But when the Michigan
  Department of Human Services heard about it, they ordered her to stop:
  watching someone else's kids makes her home an "unlicensed daycare
  facility" in the state's eyes. To comply with its rules, she must apply
  for a license to watch the kids -- even though she doesn't charge
  anything. "It's crazy," Snyder said. "I'm just helping out a couple of
  friends." She asked State Rep. Brian Calley for help, but when he
  called DHS they told him to bug off. He has promised legislation to
  deal with the problem. (Kalamazoo Gazette) ...Hopefully he'll make it
  retroactive to help the hundreds of 16-year-olds who are already doing
  hard time.

[t'Sade]

I thought I had a link to the first one. It was a really stupid thing. In Illinois, you have to sign whenever you buy medication like that. One of the most annoying things I have ever seen, and I got sad when Iowa started doing it. My mother's house keeper is the one who gets my mom's cold medication when she has a "cold" (hangover). That is pretty much a box a week.

The sheriff is basically choosing not to do the right thing and just follow the letter of the law. Which, means your laws have to be stricter and stricter to handle all those exceptions. In this case, they won't change it because "more people are saved than hurt" by a rule that says you can't buy two boxes of Tylenol in a week.

Fluffy hates it because the stuff works. The crap they have on the shelf now, which doesn't require a signature, is like waving a fan at her and she's miserable for an extra day. But, she hates (with a passion) that she has to sign something just to feel better.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2025820/burger_king_kicks_out_baby_for_not.html?cat=9

A baby was kicked out of Burger King in Missouri. Not only was the baby kicked out, but so was her mother, who had not put shoes on the infant yet. Enacting the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy, a Missouri Burger King manager told the mother that they would have to leave the restaurant because the baby wasn't wearing any shoes. The mother put socks on the baby to try and adhere to the policy, what was then threatened by the manager that he would call the police. The baby doesn't walk, and can't even crawl yet, but the manager didn't want "baby germs" getting in the way of his business.

Sadly, zero tolerance is about idiots. It is about people who choose not to make a moral decision because they don't want to be responsible for their actions. It is an excuse not to be intelligent, to think about things, or even to be a good person.

[Ludovico]

Well, there is certainly no shortage of idiots out there. That's the problem with any law or rule - morons will misinterpret it, or fail to use common sense. 

[necrocorpse]

The entire concept of a "War on Drugs" is wrong and cruel.  It assumes that humans do not own their own bodies.  Instead, the State does.  In other words, it reduces us all to slaves.  A free man has the right to ingest anything he damn well pleases.  He has the right to buy, sell, view, listen to, own, eat, drink, smoke, smell or feel anything he chooses - as long as he's not harming another physically or through fraud/theft.

There is a website, http://www.november.org/ , that illustrates the horrors of the War on Drugs very well.

[der Wandersmann]

Looks like some folks are willing to bend (a little):

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33289924/ns/today-today_people/?GT1=43001

[t'Sade]

Yeah, but I think he already got the wrong lesson out of this.

[Ludovico]

When it comes to a question of relying on judgment rather than rules, how about the folks who let Phillip Craig Garrido out of prison.

 He was serving a 50 year sentence for kidnapping and rape, and he got out after  just 10. This allowed him to destroy a young girls life, and put her in hell for 19 years. 

[t'Sade]

That one is a hard one. I think that people who have served their time should be forgiven for their crimes. You pay the price, let it go. But, some people don't ever stop, and I don't really have a good answer. I think people are hurt a lot by zero tolerance, more than those who are not, but it is hard to say "be more tolerant" in faces of people like that.

[LT]

I agree that when people serve their time, that should be that, but I think people who kidnap and rape people should serve a longer time.  I don't like the idea of them getting out after only 10 years when they've been sentenced to 50, good behavior or not.

[Ludovico]

That's the point - he didn't serve his time! He should have served 50 years, but got out due to someone's judgement !

With zero tolerance, judgment is removed. Folks tend to selectively post all the situations where it looks ridiculous, but how many Garrido's could be prevented from destroying people's lives with it?

[t'Sade]

Never said judgment was a better approach. I just don't like the idea of zero tolerance made from emotional decisions. The no weapons rule came from Columbine and no one has really reviewed it since. THey made it in fear and they are terrified to remove it.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/10/the_bizarre_con.html

Bruce Schneier has some good comments about CYA decisions. It isn't making an intelligent decision, it is avoiding making a decision. And, while this was a very bad case (someone letting him out), I'm sure some of it was procedural (not get in trouble, keep your head down for 10 years) before it even got there. If you follow rules, that is one of the things that happens.

I would like to know when judgement ended up being right or good. How many people were convicted of sexual crimes and never did them again? How many people were put on that list for enjoying anal sex (sodomy rules), people of the same gender, or even being 1-2 years off some magic age? Some of those were let out or allowed to be free because of someone's judgement. Not everyone really should be let out; this happens to be a case where I don't think someone should have let him out of prison. And I'm betting they are beating themselves up for it just as much as everyone else is right now.

[Ludovico]

I see your point, it really is how the law is written, and the circumstances. Totally agree on the knee jerk, emotional response problem. Distinguishing between sodomy involving 16 and 14 year olds, and kidnapping/rape is a major issue.

It will be very interesting when they release the details on how Garrido got out - but will someone be punished for it? 

[t'Sade]

It will be very interesting when they release the details on how Garrido got out - but will someone be punished for it?

Every single person involved with letting him out is going to be reminded for the rest of their lives about that incident. Like the crime itself, they won't be forgiven because that is how people work.

[Ludovico]

It will be very interesting when they release the details on how Garrido got out - but will someone be punished for it?

Every single person involved with letting him out is going to be reminded for the rest of their lives about that incident. Like the crime itself, they won't be forgiven because that is how people work.

Amen!

However, they also should be forced to pay - so that this unfortunate girl and her daughters should never want for the rest of their lives.

[t'Sade]

The problem is, if they are forced to pay, it pretty much enforces the need not to think about it. Call it covering your ass, but if you won't get in trouble for just blindly following rules (be it a judge, warden or anyone else) but you could get in trouble for life for making a decision, guess what? People stop making decisions. The entire point of ZT really is to remove the decision making down to blindly following rules, because it is the best approach.

Back when Boston was having that Moonlites scandal, it got blown entirely out of proportion because people didn't want to make a choice. They just kept on kicking it up higher and higher to avoid making a decision, just in case it was wrong. And since everyone did it, we spent tens of millions of dollars on the fiasco that could have been solved by 10 seconds of looking over the device and blowing it off (you know, like Chicago did).