March 04, 2006
The cracks in 'broken windows'
Daniel Brook in the Boston Globe:
A crime-fighting theory that says stopping major crimes begins with stopping small ones has influenced policing strategies in Boston and elsewhere since the 1980s. But scholars are starting to question whether fixing broken windows really fixes much at all.
More here. William Bratton and George Kelling defend "broken windows" in the National Review:
We've argued for many years that when police pay attention to minor offenses — such as prostitution, graffiti, aggressive panhandling — they can reduce fear, strengthen communities, and prevent serious crime. One of us co-originated (with James Q. Wilson) this theory, which has come to be known as "fixing broken windows"; the other implemented it in New York City, first as chief of the transit police under Mayor David Dinkins, and then more broadly as police commissioner under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Yet despite the demonstrable success of this theory, some criminologists and sociologists continue to attack it, with arguments that are factually and philosophically false. Policymakers should not be misled by these misrepresentations into returning our cities to the failed police policies of the past.
More here. [Photo shows Bratton (on left) as head of the Boston Transit Police in 1983.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 02:19 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83478b88753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The cracks in 'broken windows':
Comments
I've always been puzzled by the way Wilson and Kelling's original piece fitted into the whole "Broken Windows" philosophy. As I recall, in their original piece they admit that there was no concrete evidence that fixing broken windows actually reduced the crime rate. (Though people did *feel* safer.) Perhaps they feel they have evidence now?
"Five years after the program started, the Police Foundation, in Washington, D.C., published an evaluation of the foot-patrol project. Based on its analysis of a carefully controlled experiment carried out chiefly in Newark, the foundation concluded, to the surprise of hardly anyone, that foot patrol had not reduced crime rates. ... These findings may be taken as evidence that the skeptics were right--foot patrol has no effect on crime; it merely fools the citizens into thinking that they are safer. ... But how can a neighborhood be "safer" when the crime rate has not gone down--in fact, may have gone up?"
Unfortunately this is basically the only quote I have; I think the full piece was originally up on theatlantic.com, but it's for subscribers only now, so I can't check my recollection of it.
Posted by: Michael S. | Mar 4, 2006 3:45:11 PM
As hard as it is for me to admit it, I think even economists have more salient things to say about crime than this theory does. Have these theorists considered that individuals actually commit crime, not groups? People are not acting in some sort of collective trance, induced by the presence of abandoned houses and uncut lawns. They select from the options they have at the time. If you want to reduce criminal activity, make it easier for people to choose something else to do.
Posted by: verbatim | Mar 4, 2006 8:32:09 PM
"when police pay attention to minor offenses" is nice and bland.
What kind of attention?
Doesn't that get colored by what happens after the police pay that attention? Police don't try the arrested, they just arrest them.
Some kid with a spray can caught tagging a wall gets 6 months in the juvie because Mayor X has a hard-on for soft crime. Clean walls and broken boys.
That's one kind of attention.
Recognizing that even hookers are part of the community, even graffiti artists and hookers and aggressive panhandlers are part of the community - that's not part of the deal is it?
This sounds a lot like Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism works too.
Lots of things work, especially if you narrow the focus of desired result and ignore the long-term damage.
Exchanging the right to free speech for a promise of security from a government that has proven itself over and over to be consistently and increasingly duplicitous and plutocratic - that works too. As long as you define "working" as making the world safe for plutocrats and their servants.
Posted by: rollo | Mar 4, 2006 11:57:19 PM
The inanity of "broken windows theory" is pretty well illustrated by what gangsters have to offer- a rude sort of law and order in areas where the uniformed police can't provide it.
Where Al Capone rules Chicago, crime drops. Sure, it's a crime to extort "protection" money, but Capone makes sure that nobody else can muscle in on the racket. In Capone's world a thief robbing a shopkeeper is actually robbing him, Al Capone, of money the shopkeeper otherwise would have given him.
The same thing is said about foreign dictatorships- sure, they're gangsters, but they keep a lid on things, and keep the cities safe for trade and tourists.
The "broken windows" theory will always appeal to some who believe the lower classes get away with far too much. No surprise to find NR in that category.
Posted by: serial catowner | Mar 5, 2006 1:08:16 PM
Post a comment