November 1, 2001

Jury still out on zero tolerance

By Laura Levac
llevac@uwo.ca

Pushing and hair pulling may seem minor and immature, but this type of scene is becoming increasingly common in the courtroom.

Photo by Laura Levac

Alan Leschied, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, says zero tolerance policies may not deter violent youth.

The rate of youth charged with violent crimes was 77 per cent higher in 1998 than it was 10 years before, according to a Statistics Canada report. This same study found common assaults like pushing, slapping and punching had a lot to do with this increase.

One explanation for this is that "zero tolerance" policies, that have been made standard in Ontario schools since 1994, require more police involvement in school incidents, and result in more youth becoming involved in the justice system.

Although critics think zero tolerance can breed over reaction, some police and school board officials still see these "get tough" policies as a way of deterring youth from violent activity.

Last month, London schools set up a safety policy in response to the latest standards set by the Ontario Ministry of Education. The new Police/School Board Protocol outlines the best course of action in dealing with an incident at school.

"Teachers are now more aware of what their responsibilities are for reporting (incidents to the police) than they may have been in the past," said Sgt. Chris McCoy of the London City Police.

The policy outlines mandatory punishments for a number of violent or illegal activities that can happen on school property. Offences such as gang violence and assault must be called in to police -- a response that may lead to criminal charges and court appearances for youth.

Therein lies the problem, according to some zero tolerance critics. While McCoy stresses that only assaults resulting in serious bodily harm need to be reported, some legal experts see less serious incidents ending up in court.

"Things in the olden days that would have been dealt with by the vice-principal or principal are frequently being reported to the police and end up as a charge," said Justice Deborah Livingstone, of the Ontario Court of Justice in London.

She says that youth committing minor "misbehaviours" like pushing or throwing snowballs in the schoolyard are now being brought to court.

This could be a result of zero tolerance policies, she adds, as these types of minor offences from schoolyards were not seen in courtrooms under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, nor the Young Offenders Act.

Others agree. Alan Leschied, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario, says these types of school policies are examples of how the government has gone to extremes in dealing with crime and punishment.

"The sledge hammer of court on the tiny nail of minor assault is not that effective," he said.

He suggests that putting youth through the courts can lead them to become complacent about the justice system. "The mystique of court is gone," he said. "It becomes a case of 'big deal, I have to go to court again.' "

And this does not only affect the youth facing the charge, says psychologist Dan Ashbourne of the London Family Court Clinic. Other youth can get involved as victims, or witnesses.

But while critics argue that zero tolerance policies have criminalized youth, Ashbourne feels it's important to establish a safe learning environment for kids.

"The message conveyed by zero tolerance is very important to youth, particularly those who are being bullied," said Ashbourne. "The zero tolerance rule gives a clear message that none of these behaviours is acceptable."

The police and the schools seem to take the same approach. Ray Hughes, violence prevention co-ordinator at the Thames Valley school board, has seen a change in how school violence is perceived. "In the last 20 years, we have become more cognizant to assault where police need to be involved," said Hughes. "Things have evolved. If you look at how violent our society is, schools are no exception."

Leschied, however, says there is a lack of evidence to show that violent children will be deterred by a zero tolerance approach to discipline. He thinks prevention initiatives such as anger management programs are the key to making schools safe.

These types of programs are part of the Thames Valley school board's safe schools policy. Hughes says programs start at the junior kindergarten level in the hopes of teaching young children the value of sharing, co-operation and tolerance.

As the students get older, they become more involved in the process by forming their own violence prevention committees. Senior students take part in moderated discussions about live theatre performances and films dealing with violence.

But Livingstone is concerned that kids may not benefit from this kind of education if they are taken out of the school system because of a suspension or an expulsion.

"As soon as they do something that is against the rules, they are excluded from participating in a place where they're supposed to be educated," said Livingstone. "You're preventing them from learning why some things are wrong."

The best education, she says, is provided by educators, and not by judges or the police.

"Schools, parents, the police and the courts could work together better than they are now within the zero tolerance framework," said Livingstone. "Eventually, the buck seems to be passed by everyone."