Политика нулевой терпимости: принципы и последствия.

Punishment policy with no discretion for leniency
the general type of punishment policy
A zero tolerance policy is one which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule. Zero tolerance policies forbid people in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre determined punishment, whether mild or severe, is always meted out. Zero tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in both formal and informal policing systems around the world. The policies also appear in informal situations where there may be sexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments. In 2014, the mass incarceration in the United States based upon minor offenses has resulted in an outcry on the use of zero tolerance in schools and communities. Little evidence supports the claimed effectiveness of zero tolerance policies. One underlying problem is that there are a great many reasons why people hesitate to intervene, or to report behavior they find to be unacceptable or unlawful. Zero tolerance policies address, at best, only a few of these reasons.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the first recorded use of the term "zero tolerance" was in 1972 and was originally used in US politics. However, the term appears as early as 1939 in reference to plant diseases ("While a zero tolerance may seem a severe penalty "), in 1942 in reference to optical equipment ("They cut and polish glass precisely to 'zero tolerance,' "), and in 1945 in reference to poultry diseases ("Your safety is in buying chicks hatched from breeders showing zero tolerance."). It also appeared in the mid 1960s, in reference to an absolute ban on the pesticide heptachlor by the US Food and Drug Administration. For example, an article that appeared in the June 1963 issue of Popular Mechanics stated "Heptachlor, though, is even more toxic and has been given a 'zero tolerance' by the FDA; that is, not even the slightest trace of heptachlor is permitted on food."

Various institutions have undertaken zero tolerance policies such as in the military, in the workplace, and in schools in an effort to eliminate various kinds of illegal behavior such as harassment. Proponents hope that such policies will underscore the commitment of administrators to prevent such behavior. Others raise a concern about that use of zero tolerance policies, a concern that derives from an analysis of errors of omission and errors of commission. The reasoning is that failure to proscribe unacceptable behavior may lead to errors of omission, and too little will be done. However, zero tolerance may be seen as a kind of ruthless management, which may lead to a perception of "too much being done." If people fear that their co workers or fellow students may be fired, terminated, or expelled, they may not come forward at all when they see behavior deemed unacceptable. (That is a classic example of Type I and type II errors.) Thus, a too stringent policy may actually reduce reports of illegal behavior.

In the United States zero tolerance, an approach against drugs, was originally designed as a part of the War on Drugs under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush ostensibly to curb the transfer of drugs at the borders. Law enforcement was to target the drug users, rather than the transporters or suppliers, under the assumption that harsh sentences and strict enforcement of personal use would reduce demand and strike at root cause of the drug problem. The policy did not require additional laws; existing law was instead enacted with less leniency. Similar concepts in other countries, such as Sweden, Italy, Japan, Singapore China, India, and Russia have since been labeled zero tolerance. A consistence of zero tolerance is the absolute dichotomy between the legality of any use and no use and the equating all illicit drugs and any form of use as undesirable and harmful to society. That contrasts the views of those who stress the disparity in harmfulness among drugs and would like to distinguish between occasional drug use and problem drug use. Although some harm reductionists also see drug use as generally undesirable, they hold that the resources would do more good if they were allocated toward helping problem drug users, instead of combating all drug users. For example, research from Switzerland indicates that emphasis on problem drug users "seems to have contributed to the image of heroin as unattractive for young people." More generally, zero tolerance advocates holds the aim at ridding the society of all illicit drug use and that criminal justice has an important role in that endeavor.

The term is used in the context of driving under the influence of alcohol to refer to a lower illegal blood alcohol content for drivers under the age of 21. The legal limit in almost all US states is 0.08%. Utah is the exception, at 0.05%. For drivers under 21, the prohibited level in 16 states is 0.01% or 0.02%, which is also true in Puerto Rico, a US territory, despite its drinking age of 18. Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, and Sweden have zero tolerance laws for drugs and driving in Europe, as opposed to the other main legal approach in which laws forbidding impaired driving are enacted instead. Legislation varies in different countries that practice zero tolerance on drug use for drivers. Only a limited set of (common) drugs is included in the zero tolerance legislation in Germany and Belgium. However, in Finland and Sweden, all controlled substances fall into the scope of zero tolerance unless they are covered by a prescription. In Argentina, the Cordoba State Highway Patrol enforces a zero tolerance policy. In Asia, Japan also practices zero tolerance. People receive a fine and can be fired even the next morning if there are still traces of alcohol. Foreigners may even be deported.