In formulating an appropriate and adequate response to any question or topic, it is almost essential for one to come to a thorough understanding of not only the question asked but also any other issues that might emanate from the topic. In the answering of the issue at hand, analysing the challenge of labelling approaches, Marxist/new criminology, and feminist approaches upon 'common sense' assumptions about 'getting tough on crime', one must not assume their own knowledge is adequately suffice, but instead look to broader definitions and understandings of the topics surrounding the issue. Additionally and most importantly draw upon the conclusions and responses of suitably extended and established research from a maximum variance of sources.
             In examining the validity of how common these debates on tougher prison sentencing and more police powers actually are, the representation and stances of those claiming to represent the public's view in criminal law and order, being those running for state election, seem to be a sensible and even ideal position to commence queries.
             State election time in New South Wales is undoubtedly the time where prominent questioning of criminal and justice systems of the state is most frequent. From the start of the examination and probing of the Australian criminal justice systems at public state election this year up until the present continuance of inquiries, one common aspect continues to be asked and beckoned – a call for tougher sentencing and tougher laws for those convicted of crimes.
             A dominant aspect of this call is the concept of zero tolerance. Young (1999) suggests that zero tolerance aims on a policing or executive level to flag an intolerance of incivilities, to sweep the streets clean of deviance and disorder, to deal with aggressive beggars, loiters, drunks and prostitutes. Young additionally suggests there are five specific elements to this concept, w...