Zero tolerance
RECENTLY, I have been observing a plethora of emerging and repeated practices, often hidden in plain sight, which foist inconveniences on the public and are in breach of existing laws. The authorities seem to give little, if any, consideration to these matters despite their potential to mushroom and become problematic scenarios that they will inevitably have to address later on, often at significant cost.
For example, in the middle of Barbican Square where roadworks are currently under way, there is a vendor who regularly relocates his stall to whichever lane of traffic is being used at any given time so as to improve his market visibility. Quite ingenious; however, when some inconsiderate driver stops to patronise this vendor, the traffic lane is blocked. What, therefore, are we to expect when other vendors decide to utilise the said strategy? Chaos, plain and simple.
The point is, if the authorities adopt a policy of taking early preventive action [zero tolerance] against emerging problematic practices and minor breaches, there would be little or no scope for escalation. Nip it in the bud; send a clear message: this will not be tolerated so don’t even think about it.
Zero tolerance represents a process whereby severe sanctions are imposed for specific unacceptable behaviour regardless of whether such behaviour is serious or minor in nature. The aim is to eliminate undesirable conduct of a particular kind by sending a message of strict, uncompromising intolerance for infractions, often punishing first-time offenders without any consideration for extenuating circumstances or extensions of leniency.
In the 1990s, zero tolerance was hailed as the answer to urban crime following a police strategy in New York City of responding with criminal charges to even the most minor offences.
This model coincided with a 73 per cent fall in homicides and a 35 per cent reduction in overall crime, prompting some to claim that ‘zero tolerance’ was the magic bullet for urban criminality. However, the jury is still out on how much the fall in crime in New York can be attributed directly to the aggressive approach to petty crime. (Mark Easton: BBC: August 2011).
BALANCE
Jamaica’s demographics are different from those in New York. As such, in order to achieve successful implementation of a zerotolerance strategy, careful thought has to be put into defining which problematic behaviours are to be targeted, the changes in behaviour that are being sought, and the means by which those changes will be achieved, ever bearing in mind the local nuances.
While punitive measures may solve some of the existing issues, prevention rather than cure will suffice in other instances. The vendor in Barbican is a case in point. Surely, a stern warning to cease obstructing the traffic or contributing to back-ups would be a useful starting point, failing which prosecution of the vendor and any driver that stops to patronise him is the next logical step. Ketch ‘Kwaku’ and him shut.
Similar practices and breaches abound: laden trucks travelling three abreast on Marcus Garvey Drive, the drivers being totally indifferent to the massive traffic jam behind them; vehicles overtaking lines of traffic much to the endangerment of oncoming commuters. The offenders persist because they are getting away with it.
I must admit that the police did act quite novel in an overtaking event I witnessed. The offending driver was escorted all the way back to the end of the line where they took their time in processing him for prosecution.
Severe sanctions for relatively minor offences are not the point, strict intolerance is. Let nothing slip, focus on prevention, deal with the little things before they escalate. Thwart potential offenders in their tracks; transfer the burden of inconvenience to offenders.