[tc]

The story unwittingly demonstrates a case where zero-tolerance policies could have created frighteningly different results.

In some alternate universe, the story reads:

The librarian noticed Olly tucking the book under his jacket. Following school policy, she called the police. Olly spent the night in jail and was suspended from his school. Bitter and vengeful, he never went back. His street cred soared, and soon Olly was accepted into the local gang....

[yan]

I'm not saying they're a good idea, but countering an anecdote with another isn't a very good way to affirm your point. I doubt letting everyone go who tries to shoplift a book from the library in hopes of them becoming characters more fit for a movie plot will do much good either.

That said, you still received my up-vote since it made me think more of zero-tolerance policies and reading books in general. I remember reading a story on the Kindle's popularity with women. A lot of women it interviewed said they enjoyed the literary anonymity the Kindle afforded them in public places, as they generally didn't feel comfortable reading romance and pulp novels in public places like the subway.

The article felt to be in similar vein; someone discovers something that catches their eye but feels shame in seeking it out. I guess what we really need to test are programs that expose youth to a wide variety of material and the freedom and anonymity to pursue those interests :).

[tc]

The problem with zero-tolerance is that it too often equates to zero-thought. It drives out space for humans to exercise good judgment. And since rules often replace judgment, I think they should be evaluated in the same way we evaluate judgment -- how do the rules fare at their worst [1]?

In any case, I edited to make the anecdotal nature clear. Better?

[1] It feels somehow more 'scientific' to point out that some rule works 99.9% of the time, and to thereby dismiss anecdotes as non-evidence (not that zero-tolerance even comes close to meeting this standard). But if a rule unjustly destroys the lives of 0.1% of people who interface with it, I still consider that a lousy rule.

[yan]

You're totally right. Now that I think about it, zero-tolerance always equates to zero-thought, as the point of zero-tolerance to create a shortcut through judgment and rules.

[ryne]

Zero-tolerance, in schools anyway, is zero-thought for the administration and principles, having to deal with the grey cases, setting exceptions when they're education administrators not lawyers. I doubt a student who did a similar action (stealing and returning a library book) would perceive themselves as morally wrong even with a zero-tolerance policy in place on 'stealing'.

[jacquesm]

I think it's just fine, it exactly shows what's wrong with 0 tolerance.

One day driving along Hwy 17, rural Ontario I picked up a kid, about 17 years old. We talked for a while and it turned out that he'd been suspended/kicked out from school for some small time nonsense under the 0 tolerance policy.

He'd been well on his way to be a Canadian hockey player, #1 player in his school. Because of his 'example function' he was expelled. He was looking to find work in construction.

Now, arguably being a hockey player is not the same as being a judge, but it's a damn sight better from an income perspective than being a labourer. And it would have gotten him to finish his school, instead of hitch-hiking cross country to chase the buck.

[catzaa]

> The story unwittingly demonstrates a case where zero-tolerance policies could have created frighteningly different results.

The problem in having too much tolerance is that the library would be stolen empty. Everyone thinks that if they take just one book there is no apparent damage - but there is. Zero tolerance is also important in situations where the crime is difficult to catch (such as shoplifting or stealing books). Stealing is wrong as a moral principle. I do not get the argument from moral relativists that stealing is wrong in some cases but not in others – it is always wrong. This is a very rare case where the person actually took the book back.

There are societies where stealing has become almost socially acceptable with young people looking up to criminals and their apparent wealth.

[cglee]

The problem with the moral objectivists' argument is that they then refine stealing. So stealing is always wrong, except when it isn't, in which case it's not stealing.

[whatusername]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

So to use the English legal definition of the law: "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

I don't see that the student in question was "permanently depriving" the library of the book. (So in this case - using the legal definition - it wasn't stealing)

[catzaa]

I would not really call the argument of moral relativists as “refinement”. The same actions should always be wrong – no matter what the inferred motivations or rationalisations are.

A good example is stealing from a rich person. A lot of people feel that it is suddenly “not wrong” to steal from a rich person. The same goes for motivation – no matter what your motivation are, the action is still wrong.

[ezy]

The key part being "the same actions". This is missing subtlety and judgment. Is "stealing" the action, or is "stealing a book from the library with the intent to return it" the action?

Would you agree that stealing the same book out of someone's bag with the intent to return it is different? If so, then why are you arguing for zero tolerance?

If not, why haven't you turned yourself into the authorities for the laws you've broken?

[jacquesm]

A lot of people think murder is bad, except:

- when it is in self defense

- when it is done in the context of war

- when the state executes a serial murderer

And so on. If life were as simple and context free as you suggest we wouldn't need courts at all.

Your honor, he stole babyfood from my store!

Yes, but did he steal it to sell it or because he's too poor to afford it and needed to feed his baby ?

What's the last time you saw a street person make a law on shoplifting ?

In the law, and by extension in court, context is everything.

[catzaa]

Murder is still wrong in all of the above. In the first case it was basically the person’s choice to get killed.

> Your honor, he stole babyfood from my store! > Yes, but did he steal it to sell it or because he's too poor to afford it and needed to feed his baby ?

Having a need and stealing to fulfil it is still wrong. It does not matter what your motivation is – it is still not your property. I have respect for a person who break the law in the above case and face the law. But he should still receive his punishment.

To act as if he is not guilty is wrong – he is just as guilty of the crime as any other person who stole baby milk formula (whatever their motivation is).

A good example of moral relativism that I hate is so called “hate crimes”. Do you really care what the person’s motivation is when he murder/assaulted you?

[jacquesm]

The world isn't black & white, it's lots of shades of gray, and orthogonal to that there are lots of colours, there is not 'one truth', there are as many truths as there are observers.

This isn't a mathematics problem where the outcome is '1' ('guilty') or '0' ('not guilty'), there are an infinite number of degrees in between.

Let's just say that I hope you will never be put in a position where your assumptions are put to the test.

For the record, (some of) my family lived through World War II in a pretty uncomfortable spot and plenty of what they did was against the law of the land at that time, but that didn't make any of it wrong.

[cglee]

Sorry, I meant "redefine", not "refine". I would say the problem with this "always right/wrong" approach is not in the obvious cases (like stealing from the rich ... it's still stealing), but in the edge cases where it's not entirely obvious a real act of stealing is taking place.

Moral objectivists will vary the definition of stealing for self benefit. We've seen this in history where moral objectivists have justified slavery, invasion, and all kinds of destruction this way.