Does 'zero tolerance' take away copping skills?

[Knife]

So, I was watching the news and a story was being talked about where a kid in AZ was suspended for doodling a flip book style scene on his notebook where one stick figure shot another stick figure. The story was pretty close to this one(but I can't find the one I'm talking about, if I can I'll edit a link in).

Anyway, got me thinking, besides the utter stupidity of 'zero tolerance' laws, are we as a society now taking away a stress relief for little boys, or even older boys? A lot of activieties that kids used to use to 'healthily' (I guess is the best way to put it) such as cops and robbers or dodgeball or even watered down violant picture drawnings, are getting to be taboo because of the specters of Columbine etc....

At what point are we taking away all the small and healthy ways to express anger/violence/hunting behavior that's in small boys and at what point are we as a society really just helping the next pent up angsty teen to snap and do a Columbine?

Reminds me of those families that did nothing but smile and be happy infront of their kids. Sounds nice from the outset, but when those kids got older and into relationships of their own, they saw their relationships had more modes than just happy/smiliely and thought they were in bad or the wrong relationship. They could not find the relationships that they thought their parents had, even though it was really a facade.

Could this type of thing be an outcome with 'zero tolerance' taken too far? Removing all the more or less harmless stress reliefs for emotions that are natural, and basically forcing kids to bottle up these things?

[Darth Wong]

There's nothing wrong with "zero tolerance" as a concept, as long as it's only applied to things that really should be treated that way, like drunk driving or public officials taking bribes.

The problem is when they apply it to "crimes" which don't necessarily cause any harm to anyone.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

It seems to me that zero-tolerance policies are really designed to protect the schools rather than the children.

[Szass Tam]

That's ridiculous. The more you confine a person, the more they rebel, and if it's about something important like "not being a murderous nut," you're going to have a problem. Fantasy violence lets people act out things they shouldn't do in real life, and lets them work through their angry feelings so they don't build up and eventually explode in a spray of gunfire.

Hell, in elementary school, my friends and I had a club that involved drawing pictures of ants (Black ants vs. red ants) killing each other with World War II era weapons and made contests out of who could come up with the most inventive ant deaths, usually involving Rube Goldberg-esque devices, and we've all made it through at least 2 years of college so far and aren't axe murderers.

[Darwin]

It seems to me that zero-tolerance policies are really designed to protect the schools rather than the children.

Exactly. it's a handwave CYA for the schools, where rules are enforced by policy instead of common sense. No tolerance policies specifically prohibit common-sense, in fact.

[Adrian Laguna]

I just read an interesting article in the ABA's website regarding zero-tolerance policies. Here's an excerpt (emphasis mine):

The American Bar Association has long had policies against mandatory sentencing in the criminal justice system. In 1974, the ABA adopted a resolution opposing, "in principle, legislatively imposed mandatory minimum prison sentences..."

The Criminal Justice Standards urge legislatures to authorize sentencing courts to impose a range of available sanctions, specifying maximum but not mandatory minimum sentences. See Standards on Sentencing, 18-3.11, 18-3.21.

The American Bar Association, which opposes mandatory minimum sentences for adults convicted of serious crimes, should also oppose mandatory minimum sanctions for school children who misbehave.

Unfortunately, "zero tolerance" is public education's effort to import to education the concept of adult mandatory sentencing.( Zero tolerance is a perverse version of mandatory sentencing, first, because it takes no account of what we know about child and adolescent development, and second, because at least in the criminal justice system (despite ABA policy) when mandatory sentences exist, there are different mandatory sentences for offenses of different seriousness.

For example, a gun-related offense might lead to a mandatory five-year-sentence, but only murder leads to a mandatory life sentence. Zero tolerance in schools, however, is closer to a mandatory life sentence for a wide range of student misconduct. (In some places this is literally true. In Georgia children who are expelled from school are expelled for life. In Massachusetts, expelled students also permanently lose their right to a public education.)

Despite the obvious harshness of mandatory sentencing, which reduces judicial discretion, it at least has the benefit of being related to the perceived seriousness of the offense, or tied to the criminal history of the defendant. America's criminal justice system has yet to embrace a single sentence for all crimes -- indeed, America moved beyond single draconian sentences for minor offenses two hundred years ago.

Thus, zero tolerance policies for students adopt a theory of mandatory punishment that has been rejected by the adult criminal justice system because it is too harsh! Rather than having a variety of sanctions available for a range of school-based offenses, state laws and school district policies apply the same expulsion rules to the six-year-old as to the 17-year-old; to the first time offender as to the chronic troublemaker; to the child with a gun as to the child with a Swiss Army knife.

Zero-tolerance is basically tantamount to treating our children like dangerous criminals. Often for no legitimate reason whatsoever (like giving away candy the teacher does not recognize), and for honest mistakes (like leaving a knife in the lunch box).

[Adrian Laguna]

To address the OP more directly, it affects children's coping skills, though not in the manner suggested. The problem with zero-tolerance is that it creates an aura of fear, where the students must be wary of even perfectly harmless things lest the administration come down on them like a ton of bricks. The other problem is that it fosters a general feeling of unfairness. What's the point of teaching kids about justice, free expression, honesty, and fairness if you're just going to turn around and crush all that like a ruthless dictator?

[Darth Wong]

No doubt a lot of people will rush to blame this on "soccer moms", but the real culprit is the Culture of the Tough Guy. Soccer moms just want something done; they don't know exactly what that thing should be. That's hardly unreasonable, but the Culture of the Tough Guy means that in order to show that you're doing something about a problem, you have to show how "tough" you are on it. This kind of culture actually rewards excessive measures, unreasonable inflexibility, etc. That's why politicians can be elected for claiming to be "tough on crime", rather than offering practical solutions.

[Connor MacLeod]

I can imagine alot of ways that zero tolerance creates far more problems than it solves, at least when applied wrongly. In the example provided above, kids can get expelled for life from schools. I imagine that sort of action carries a stigma for the child if they try to get into any other schools as well. Wouldn't this basically deny a child a right to an education (even an American one?) I can't see that adding to the situation. Depriving a child of education, even a rudimentary one, has to be harmful in the long term.

I also have to wonder how much of it is "overcompensation" - it seems all too often the culture doesn't want to be bothered to do anything about the problem... until it happens. Then we overreact by enacting all sorts of extreme and excessive measures as both a means of compensating (thinking it will fix problems) and as a sort of security blanket. (9/11 is the best example I can think of, but its happened with many school shootings as well.)

Overcompensation, I think, might also fit in with the "tough guy" culture Mike speaks of.

Edit: I amended the first sentencee about "craeting problems" to reflect the fact Mike has a point about Zero tolerance being good when properply applied.

[PainRack]

That's ridiculous. The more you confine a person, the more they rebel, and if it's about something important like "not being a murderous nut," you're going to have a problem. Fantasy violence lets people act out things they shouldn't do in real life, and lets them work through their angry feelings so they don't build up and eventually explode in a spray of gunfire.

Hell, in elementary school, my friends and I had a club that involved drawing pictures of ants (Black ants vs. red ants) killing each other with World War II era weapons and made contests out of who could come up with the most inventive ant deaths, usually involving Rube Goldberg-esque devices, and we've all made it through at least 2 years of college so far and aren't axe murderers.

Just something.... pyschologists are saying that venting aggression/frustration doesn't decrease aggression at all, but stimulates it. Repressing it isn't the answer either..........

[Sea Skimmer]

Zero tolerance is just a code phrase for zero thinking and zero accountability for people who are supposedly to be paid to make decisions.

[Keevan_Colton]

Its a wonderful method for replacing reasoning completely with procedure.

[Skgoa]

Just something.... pyschologists are saying that venting aggression/frustration doesn't decrease aggression at all, but stimulates it. Repressing it isn't the answer either..........

My personal experience is saying that venting aggression does in fact decrease aggression. I was on the way to a very dark place until I started playing Counter Strike.

[Uraniun235]

Its a wonderful method for replacing reasoning completely with procedure.

I think if you replaced 'reasoning' with 'responsibility' you'd be closer to the mark. It's a lot easier for someone to just hide behind procedure (or, at least, hide behind superiors) rather than face the possibility of having to defend your actions.

[Straha]

Just something.... pyschologists are saying that venting aggression/frustration doesn't decrease aggression at all, but stimulates it. Repressing it isn't the answer either..........

My personal experience is saying that venting aggression does in fact decrease aggression. I was on the way to a very dark place until I started playing Counter Strike.

There've been studies which show that venting aggression actually increases aggressive tendencies over the short term. I do not believe there have been any similar studies for venting over long periods of time (which would be much harder to quantify anyway.)