Page 137 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 137
intolerance and the zero tolerance fallacy 137
3. Characterizing the Zero Tolerance Fallacy
A zero tolerance policy is one that automatically imposes a punish-
ment for any violation of a given social rule. Once such a policy is in
place, those charged with enforcing the policy are forbidden from us-
ing discretion as to whether observed violations of the policy are to be
brought to the attention of those charged with punishing violators; and
there is no provision for the punishment to be lessened or altered to fit
particular circumstances. The only issue that may legitimately be enter-
tained is whether the rule was violated. If it was, then the fixed punish-
ment is to be imposed. Almost always when zero tolerance policies are
adopted – though this is not essential – the offences are strict liability
offences. Indeed, from here on I will assume that the offences are strict
liability ones. In addition, the penalty attached is usually thought to be
severe relative to the offence that was committed.
Sometimes people adopt a zero tolerance policy for good reasons.
They may judge that some activity or behaviour has harmful conse-
quences (or is itself harmful) and that the best or most cost-effective way
to eliminate or minimize the behaviour is to adopt a policy of zero toler-
ance towards that behaviour. Reasonable people may well disagree about
whether the behaviour is such that steps ought to be taken to reduce its
occurrence, or they may think that having zero tolerance for such behav-
iour is draconian. (For example, someone might advocate a zero toler-
ance policy towards the possession of a drug. Others might think there
should be no penalty attached to possession or consumption of that
drug. Still others might think that people ought to be discouraged from
possessing and consuming the drug in question but hold that a zero tol-
erance policy is simply too extreme a tool for dealing with the matter.)
But we can hardly hold that if such behaviour is to be eliminated or re-
duced as much as possible, then advocating the best or most cost-effec-
tive means of reducing that behaviour necessarily involves the advocate
in a fallacy. Nor am I interested in considering here those cases where
people disagree about whether a particular behaviour is one we want to
discourage. Our interest is in whether having a zero tolerance policy is
an appropriate means to a social end, not whether that end is one the so-
ciety should seek to attain.
Rather, I am concerned with cases where a zero tolerance policy is
adopted because, while it may seriously be believed that adopting such a
policy is a good way to reduce the behaviour in question, there is no ev-
idence, or there is inadequate evidence, to support this belief (or those
3. Characterizing the Zero Tolerance Fallacy
A zero tolerance policy is one that automatically imposes a punish-
ment for any violation of a given social rule. Once such a policy is in
place, those charged with enforcing the policy are forbidden from us-
ing discretion as to whether observed violations of the policy are to be
brought to the attention of those charged with punishing violators; and
there is no provision for the punishment to be lessened or altered to fit
particular circumstances. The only issue that may legitimately be enter-
tained is whether the rule was violated. If it was, then the fixed punish-
ment is to be imposed. Almost always when zero tolerance policies are
adopted – though this is not essential – the offences are strict liability
offences. Indeed, from here on I will assume that the offences are strict
liability ones. In addition, the penalty attached is usually thought to be
severe relative to the offence that was committed.
Sometimes people adopt a zero tolerance policy for good reasons.
They may judge that some activity or behaviour has harmful conse-
quences (or is itself harmful) and that the best or most cost-effective way
to eliminate or minimize the behaviour is to adopt a policy of zero toler-
ance towards that behaviour. Reasonable people may well disagree about
whether the behaviour is such that steps ought to be taken to reduce its
occurrence, or they may think that having zero tolerance for such behav-
iour is draconian. (For example, someone might advocate a zero toler-
ance policy towards the possession of a drug. Others might think there
should be no penalty attached to possession or consumption of that
drug. Still others might think that people ought to be discouraged from
possessing and consuming the drug in question but hold that a zero tol-
erance policy is simply too extreme a tool for dealing with the matter.)
But we can hardly hold that if such behaviour is to be eliminated or re-
duced as much as possible, then advocating the best or most cost-effec-
tive means of reducing that behaviour necessarily involves the advocate
in a fallacy. Nor am I interested in considering here those cases where
people disagree about whether a particular behaviour is one we want to
discourage. Our interest is in whether having a zero tolerance policy is
an appropriate means to a social end, not whether that end is one the so-
ciety should seek to attain.
Rather, I am concerned with cases where a zero tolerance policy is
adopted because, while it may seriously be believed that adopting such a
policy is a good way to reduce the behaviour in question, there is no ev-
idence, or there is inadequate evidence, to support this belief (or those
