Zero Tolerance Agreement Definition
Opponents of zero tolerance argue that such a policy neglects case-by-case investigations and can lead to excessively harsh penalties for crimes that, in reality, do not justify such penalties. Another criticism of the zero-tolerance policy is that it gives public servants and the justice system little latitude to deal with offenders. The zero-tolerance policy may prohibit their enforcers from tailoring the sentence to the crime. Zero tolerance runs counter to health principles and human services and standards for the education and healthy growth of children, families and communities. Even traditional municipal service providers in the 1970s were for “services for all” (for example. B, zero rejection), instead of 100% social exclusion (zero tolerance). Public administration and disability have supported principles such as education, employment, housing, transportation, recreation and political participation in the community.  Zero-tolerance groups claim are not a right in the United States. Various institutions have implemented zero-tolerance policies, such as in the military, in the workplace and in schools, to eliminate different types of illegal behaviour, such as harassment.
Supporters hope that such guidelines will underline the commitment of directors to prevent such behaviour. Others are concerned about this application of zero-tolerance policies, a concern that stems from an analysis of the Commission`s shortcomings and errors. There is no credible evidence that zero tolerance reduces violence or drug abuse by students.    It would be difficult to find many lawyers on the corporate side who advocate broad application of the zero-tolerance policy, and from what I can say, staff lawyers have about as much concern as we do. Why is that so? However, a study published by the Advancement Project in 2000 suggested that zero tolerance, although purportedly a neutral policy, was disproportionately applied to students in colour. Such concerns led the American Bar Association (ABA) to adopt a resolution in 2001 that fundamentally opposes zero-tolerance policies with a discriminatory effect (1) or (2) to impose a mandatory sanction regardless of the circumstances, nature of the offence or the history of the student.