Zero Tolerance at schools

[Kheldarson]

No, in theory, it says that no matter the circumstances we treat all equally. Note, this does not mean fairly. It means equally. As in it doesn't matter skin, gender, sexuality, class, if you do something wrong, you get punished for it. That's why it works, in theory.

Problem is, when we do things strictly on an equal scale, we notice that it's not truly fair. As in your example. Two cars run a red light. Both cause an accident of equal scale. One was due to a freak accident (brakes snapped or something), the other by negligence (on a cell phone or just not paying attention). To charge both of them with the same crime and give them the same punishment would be equal. They both did the exact same thing. Not the same reasons, but the end result was the same. But it would be equal. And no chance for anyone to claim we're discriminating for any reason.

However, as you pointed out, that's unfair to the person whose brakes failed or whatever on the car failed. And that's because zero tolerance won't take into account extenuating circumstances. When we do that, we make things fair, but it's no longer truly equal. But as was pointed out in my education classes, we prefer things fair to equal.

But it's on the basis of treating everyone equally that zero tolerance works, in theory. It's horrid in practice, though.

[Andara Bledin]

They both did the exact same thing. Not the same reasons, but the end result was the same.

But that's not true. They didn't do the same thing. They merely had the same results.

And therein lies the problem.

Zero tolerance punishes for results and not for actions.

^-.-^

[MadMike]

Once again, with how fucked up the schools are, I'm glad I'm not putting any more kids thru that system.

Damn, in the real world you're allowed to defend yourself, even lethally in some cases.

[Kheldarson]

But that's not true. They didn't do the same thing. They merely had the same results.

And therein lies the problem.

Zero tolerance punishes for results and not for actions.

^-.-^

Actually, they did. In the example, both cars ran the red light hence causing an accident. The reason why they ran the red light was different though (mechanical failure vs. negligence).

Or take one of the big examples here: fighting in schools. Two kids get into a fight. One was taking all the swings, badgering, poking, slapping, etc. The other just swung the last punch as a final defense. Both are now "involved in fighting". Different reasons, but as both touched the other, we can consider it fighting. Now is it fair? Hell no. Because we know the second kid was just defending. But again, both had the same action.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I remember getting punished for being on the receiving end of some bullshit or other. I don't remember what exactly sparked the incident. I do remember that I had done absolutely nothing to merit being punished. So I cheerfully took my cornholing without complaint and learned a very important lesson.

That lesson was this: The next time someone gave me any shit, I might as well kick their ass from here to next month, since I was apparently going to get punished anyways. And the next time, that is exactly what I did.

Interestingly, after THAT incident, there WAS no next time.

Possibly the most important lesson I learned in school.

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, they did. In the example, both cars ran the red light hence causing an accident.

The cars running the light and being in an accident was the result, not the action.

And that is exactly what's wrong with zero tolerance.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Right: one driver stepped on the brake and the other did not. Different actions.

Perhaps a better traffic-related example: I forget what it's called, but it's against the law to swerve around and crash into the ditch. But should it not matter that one person did it because he was too drunk/high to steer, and the other because the semi in the next lane would have crashed into him otherwise?

[Kheldarson]

Know what? Drop the cars. That's getting into nitpicking territory.

Point was, zero tolerance takes the main action and end result and says "if this, then that." So this action/result = this punishment. Anything else doesn't equate in, so therefore all is "equal". And, in theory, we like it when we can say we treat everyone equally.

But what we really want is to treat all people fairly. That's why zero tolerance doesn't work in practice. Treating people fairly says "we take the reasons into the equation too". So the equation becomes this action/result + this particular circumstance = this punishment/reward or this action/result + that particular circumstance = that punishment/reward.

[Greenday]

So this action/result = this punishment. Anything else doesn't equate in, so therefore all is "equal".

In theory, this is why it's crap.

[Kheldarson]

Not disagreeing. Just saying that's the theory. That's why it works in theory. If your end goal is to treat all equally, well, there's a formula for success.

Doesn't mean it makes it any less craptastic though.