[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'.