Zero tolerance policing means Zero justice The following article was published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, March 10th, 1999. Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia. Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795. Email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Webpage: http://www.peg.apc.org/~guardian Subscription rates on request. ****************************** Zero tolerance policing (ZTP) would lead to a further rapid increase in the jailing of Aboriginal people for trivial offences and breach 19 of the recommendations of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. These are two of the findings of a study commissioned by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC). "Zero Tolerance Policing: Implications for Indigenous People" was prepared for ATSIC by prominent criminologist, Chris Cunneen, of the Institute of Criminology at Sydney University Law School. The report was released by ATSIC Commissioner, Colin Dillon, the most senior ranking commissioned Aboriginal police officer in Australia and a recipient of the Australian Police Medal during his 30 years in the Queensland Police Force. Commissioner Dillon called on all policy makers considering the ZTP model to have "a long, hard look at this report". Commissioner Dillon said that the report draws on a wealth of material from criminologists, lawyers and police administrators to provide a clear and objective study of a model of policing which should be rejected out of hand in a democratic society. While there are different models of ZTP, the New York City model is the one that has been studied by Australian politicians and police from NSW, WA, Victoria and the NT and is most likely to be implemented here. It directly aims at increasing arrest rates for minor offences such as public drunkenness, offensive language and behaviour, loitering and other similar behaviour. The poor and homeless, indigineous people and other minorities become acceptable police targets. It goes hand in hand with mandatory sentencing and long prison sentences. Politicians appear to the electorate to be "reclaiming the streets" and cracking down hard on the most visible symbols of social disorder. Advocates of ZTP claim that a strong law enforcement approach to minor crime (in particular public order offences) would prevent more serious crime from occurring and will ultimately lead to falling crime rates. "ZTP will increase criminalisation, increase jail rates and may increase the level of public disorder. Let's face it, past and present law and order policies have created a high level of suspicion and resentment between indigenous Australians and police. "ZTP will only worsen that situation." Commissioner Dillon pointed out that, in addition to these problems, ZTP conflicts with Australia's obligations under numerous international human rights standards. He said that the blueprint for improving law and justice issues in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities was laid out in the Royal Commission's report and that nothing had changed to warrant the introduction of ZTP. "Instead of chasing headlines with glib but meaningless slogans about tougher law and order, governments need to face up to the fact that they have failed to deliver. The circumstances that unfairly put our people behind bars haven't changed. The evidence is shameful." ZTP, and existing policies of mandatory sentencing, represent a disaster for indigenous Australians in the administration of justice, he said. The report Chris Cunneen's report says that there is widespread criticism of ZTP from criminologists, lawyers and police administrators both in the USA and Europe. The main arguments against ZTP are: * There is lack of evidence of any direct causal link between ZTP and declining crime figures. In some US jurisdictions the same reductions in the levels of crime are being achieved through other policing strategies. * ZTP is resource intensive. It requires either increased police numbers or the allocation of existing resources away from other areas of enforcement. ZTP is invariably short-term and expensive. * It emphasises offences in public places -- street offences. Its focus is not on potentially more major areas, such as domestic violence,or facets of property crime such as fraud. * ZTP may increase the level of public disorder because it is pro-active. It contradicts the results of major inquiries into public disorder which stress the need for policing based on community consent, trust and participation. It will also worsen relations between particular communities and police. * This form of policing undermines principles of community policing, including commitment to crime prevention, problem- solving and closer community partnerships. * ZTP strategies have been consistently implicated with violations of civil and political rights. * By targeting street offences, ZTP is aimed essentially at the poor and the homeless. Racial and ethnic minorities are also concentrated in these groups. * ZTP will lead to far greater levels of criminalisation. In particular, minority groups, which already have large proportions of their male population with criminal records, will see even greater degrees of criminalisation. This will further compound social and economic marginalisation. * ZTP will require greater court resources to deal with increased arrests and will increase the prison population. If adopted along the lines developed in the US City of New York, ZTP is most likely to come down hardest on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Nationally, nearly one in three indigenous people placed in police custody are there because of intoxication in public, whether it is a criminal offence or not. ZTP will make reduction of this number difficult to achieve, and in fact is likely to lead to an increase in police custody. Also nationally, nearly half of all people placed in police custody for public order offences (not including drunkenness) are indigenous. The focus of ZTP on increasing arrests for public order offences will have a dramatic and discriminatory effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This increased number in custody will increase the number of indigenous deaths in police custody. ZTP is contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission which advocates indigenous self-determination, community policing, arrest as last resort, non-arrest for trivial offences, alternatives to arrest for juveniles and diversion from police custody for public drunkenness. It is also potentially in conflict with sections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Convention on the Rights of the Child; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. ZTP also conflicts with several principles set out in the draft declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
