A Case Study Of Broken Window Policing

Kelling created Broken Window Policing to maintain clean and organized neighborhoods in order to decrease possible crimes. Kelling designed the theory using vague language, which allowed for multiple interpretations when designing broken window policing. Instead of reducing crime rates, this policy over criminalized small crimes. The results of broken window policing did not meet Kelling’s expectations, which resulted in him blaming the negative results of the policy on bad policing. But the negative outcomes of the policy did not arise from just bad policing; Kelling’s broken window policing opened the door for discriminatory practices, and fed the prison system. Not only is the policy problematic, but it has not lead to a decrease in crime

In the study, they neglect to factor in the financial needs of their subjects. The study of Broken Window was based on the results received from higher income neighborhoods; in those neighborhoods financial circumstances are not crucial to families. Financial factors vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and even from family to family within the same neighborhoods. Ignoring this financial need in the areas where the studies were done lead to fundamental misunderstandings in the theory. The study generalizes the outcome of one broken window. Having a broken window on any property does not automatically lead to more broken windows, like suggested by the results of the cars placed in California and the Bronx. The level of desperation of families due to their financial circumstances leads to increasing crime rates. When the economy is unstable, a lot of people become unemployed; people that still have the obligation of sustaining their families. This may lead them to turn to illegal activities for a fast extra source of income. In these situations, crimes involving robberies and drugs increase in

Kelling designed broken window policing to have police officers foot patrol the neighborhoods and have them build relationships with residents. He ideally wanted an assigned cop to become familiar with the people in the neighborhood, and build relations to be able to point out suspicious activity. For this to happen, there needs to be an abundance of police officers in order to be able to walk around neighborhoods all day, and still have enough officers attend emergencies. Which in a crowded city like New York, it is almost impossible to do. Even then, when this idea was implemented in Newark, New Jersey crime did not decrease. Although residents of Newark felt safer having cops foot patrol around their neighborhood, the policy did not have a positive effect on the purpose for which the policy was created. This idea, of the foot patrol officers was not implemented into the practice of the theory in New York. Most cops use cars and an excess amount of force when arresting. Police officers have shot and killed 395 people since the beginning of this year. (Charles M. Blow) Instead, police officers have transmitted fear to