Zero tolerance policing means:
Zero justice

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.