The "zero tolerance" policy in schools is not just and should be removed

Thanks to Officialjake for one of my two simultaneous first debates on this site. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ First, I will make my own case, then I will address my opponent's case. Since my opponent has defined no clear thesis for the round, I will attempt to synthesize one from his 1st introductory speech. The thesis I will negate in this following part of the debate is thus: "Zero tolerance policies on drugs and weapons in public education are unjust." My opponent may amend this thesis if he thinks that this thesis is not representative of his arguments. A few definitions to begin. My opponent may offer alternate definitions if he thinks these definitions are not suitable. 1) Zero-Tolerance Policies are policies that punish all violators equitably with no exceptions. In schools, zero-tolerance policies are usually in effect regarding violence, weapon possession, and drug possession, use, dealing, etc. 2) Justice is defined as giving each his due. I stand in firm negation of the resolution: "Zero tolerance policies on drugs and weapons in public education are unjust.". These policies aim to end violence and drug abuse by making any and all violations by implementing immediate and standard punishment for all infractions. In doing so, they make sure that violators cannot escape punishment through loopholes in school policies. Indeed, I claim that this makes the policies more fair than any other type of policy. There may be misadministration, but any policy will have misadministration. Remember, my opponent has to prove that zero-tolerance policies themselves are unjust, not that they have the potential to be administered unjustly. I reserve the right, as did my opponent, to bring up further evidence and arguments in Round 2. Now on to my opponent's case. Since he has not clearly defined his points, I will do my best to summarize them. My response to each point will follow the stating of said point. 1) Zero-tolerance policies violate "due process". My Response: Here is the clause from the Constitution my opponent references: "...[no person] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law." First off, children are not members of the voting franchise and are thus not covered under due process legislation. Second, this is not a violation of "due process" because it does not deprive the child of life, liberty, or property. Children are not detained for for violating the policies, nor do they have any property (except drugs and weapons, which are illegal for their possession) taken from them. Schools are certainly not allowed to execute children for violating school policies. The worst the school can do is expel the student, which violates none of the rights listed in the due process clause. If a violation also may have broken state or federal law, the child is tried in court the same way that anyone else is i.e. if it goes to trial, the child is indeed given due process. 2) Children are suspended and expelled for acts that don't deserve punishment. My response: I agree, the children you cite in your stories didn't deserve the punishment, but unjust administration does not equal an unjust policy. Certainly there were undue suspensions and expulsions before zero-tolerance policies came about; the point is not proven your point until it is shown that a greater proportion of children are unjustly suspended and expelled under zero-tolerance policies than under traditional policies. Secondly, all of my opponent's evidence is anecdotal. Yes, these are all terrible stories, but how often does this actually occur? He provides no statistics to show that it happens often enough to warrant any concern. The solution to his point as stands? Sack the incompetent administrators in his anecdotes, while retaining the zero-tolerance policies I have already shown to be more just than any traditional alternative. Because of my opponent's complete failure to prove any of his points, the resolution is clearly untrue.