I wrote this piece several years ago and have posted it on TFL on several occasions.
Well put, though I'm not in
full agreement. There are some limited instances in which I think zero-tolerance policies may not be entirely horrible. For instance, one example that played out at my high school was students bringing firearms on campus.
Now, first we have to start with the assumption that a ban on students bringing firearms to a high school is a good thing; I'm going to state this as a "given" even if some disagree, because obviously it's impossible to really discuss the rest if this isn't accepted.
Anyway, my school had very clear rules on students and firearms. Bring one, never come back. Of course, like most schools they had to take it about six steps too far, so this rule covered replicas, squirt guns, all kinds of other non-firearms. But regardless, the simple and, in my opinion, sensible rule remained...bring a gun, get expelled. Period.
Why do I think this was sensible? Every year the principal would come to every class and spend time explaining the policy. It was sent home. Basically every possible effort was made to ensure that every last student had it made
very clear to them this policy...bring a gun on campus, get expelled. Okay. So what happens? Two of our more popular football players bring a gun, get expelled. Didn't graduate, I believe they lost scholarships, all kinds of consequences.
Their excuse? They were going shooting with their coach after school, so they didn't figure it was a big deal. Man,
what? They were caught because they actually pulled the gun (a shotgun, IIRC) out of one kid's car, and were taking it over to the other kid's car because they wanted to take that guys car out to where they were shooting. Just walked it across the parking lot like it was nothing.
Now, on the one hand this suggests what your post was getting at...there really was no malice involved. I get that. On the other, it
also suggests to me that these kids quite honestly could not fathom that the rules actually applied to them. That, or they didn't care enough to get clarification on said rules (were parking lots covered...on a side note it was pretty obviously that they were, but whatever) beforehand...because, again, the rules probably didn't apply to them anyway. I see people making threads here all the time looking for clarification on all kinds of crazy things that they could probably just get away with anyway...but again, they know that
the rules apply to them and that if they
are caught and it
is illegal they'll be hosed.
These kids, not so much.
And, unlike the girl with the steak knife in the OP, they had options. They didn't need the shotgun in class, or in the cafeteria. There's little reason they couldn't simply have parked the car with the gun in it off-campus...there was actually street parking nearby, I know this because for a semester I had no parking sticker and used it. They could have parked in any number of nearby areas, and having two kids with cars a little co-ordination could have opened up their options considerably (one kid parks, the other drives him the rest of the way). They could have left it at home, and gotten it after school...my school's radius of coverage wasn't large, you're looking at a ten minute drive to pretty much any student's house (also note that this was a urban/suburban area...not rural). Or, lastly, they could simply have left the darn thing in the trunk (moved it off-campus) and nobody would have been the wiser.
But again, either these kids figured the rules didn't apply to
them, or they simply didn't feel like checking if the rules applied
in this case...which in my opinion probably stemmed from a cavalier attitude towards the rules
in general, likely because they figured they generally didn't apply to them. Yes, I realize that to some extent it seems like I just didn't like these guys. But really, that's not it. I don't generally like
anybody who acts as though the rules don't apply to them; sure, I've broken a rule or two in my day as well...but I don't act all flabbergasted if I actually have to face the
consequences for it (and I have).
My point (if there is one...again, it's late) is that too often when zero-tolerance policies
aren't used the punishment doled out has less to do with what was done, and what the circumstances were, and the "goodness" factor you talked about and more to do with
who was involved. If expulsion was an option, rather than mandatory, then if an otherwise good kid like myself were in the same situation (brought a gun to school to go shooting with a buddy after school, walked it across the parking lot) I'd probably be facing it as a very real possibility (though obviously not definite). I was, for the most part, a "nobody" at my school. Didn't get in trouble, but aside from my friends and a few of my teachers unlikely to be missed. A couple of star football players with NCAA scholarships coming to them, and the head coach arguing in their favor? They might not even be
suspended if it would keep them from playing that Friday.
So yeah, I guess I believe there are
some cases where zero-tolerance policies might be warranted. I guess for me it just comes down to where the line is drawn...obviously, I think it's drawn
long before the incident in the OP. Also, I think honestly I don't favor the idea much in the "real" criminal justice system...expulsion is pretty severe, obviously, but nothing compared to mandatory minimum sentences in prison.
This is turning into (or rather,
is) a wall of text, so I'll cut it there.