Broken Window Theory Essay

Broken Window Theory
In this paper I will be discussing the Broken Window Theory. The definition of the Broken Window Theory according to the textbook is” An informal theory of police responsibility for controlling low level disorders and relationship of disorder to more serious crime“ Another definition of the broken window theory is” a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further vandalism and escalation into more serious crime.” The theory was introduced by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in 1982 as a metaphor for disorder within

neighborhoods . Before the theory was developed law enforcement scholars and police focused on serious crime, such as rape, robbery, and murder. Wilson and Kelling had taken a different view. They believe serious crime is the result of a longer chain of events and arises from disorder. They feel that if disorder were eliminated, then serious crimes would not occur. They also feel that such common disorder will create fear in the minds of citizens who feel that their community or neighborhood is unsafe. Due to this factor, the criminals are no longer afraid to commit small crimes and then graduate into more serious crimes, increasing disorder in the community. Disorder causes crime, and crime causes further disorder and more serious crimes to happen in the community.
The theory has its share of critics and criticism. One such criticism is there is little evidence that this disorder causes crime when it is not challenged. In order to prove the theory, it must be shown that disorder causes fear, which in turn causes a breakdown in the rules of society, which then turns into crime. Crime will then increase the level of disorder in society. One person who supported the theory was a political scientist named Wesley Skogan. He found that certain social and physical disorders are linked to some serious crimes. He recommends caution in the explanation of his results that proved the validity of the theory. Some have questioned Skogan’s support, such as Bernard Harcourt , who found that disorder and some crimes such as purse snatching, assault and rape disappeared when poverty stricken neighborhoods became more stable, and race issues were controlled. The link between disorder and robbery remained even after some crimes and race issues were controlled. Harcourt felt the theory was fostering the “zero tolerance” policy and that it works against the disadvantaged people in today’s society.
A criminal justice scholar named Ralph Taylor, found that no certain pattern between crime and disorder is visible. He thinks some disorderly acts are linked to specific crimes. Attention to disorder may be an error, specific crimes may not reflect general disorder. Specific problems require specific solutions. He believes this provides support for problem-oriented strategies rather than for the broken windows theory. The validity of the theory is not yet known. You may feel the theory does not explain everything, sometimes companion theories are necessary to make any conclusions as to whether the theory is valid or not in the relationship of crimes and disorder in today’s society. Some believe that fear will increase a person’s desire to leave disorderly communities/neighborhoods and move to better communities/neighborhoods. This would work well for the middle-class but the low-class would not have this option. When the middle class move out and the low class remain, the neighborhood will become stressed and economically disadvantaged. This will show the relationship between disorder and the increase of crime in the neighborhood.
According to Matthew C.

Scheider, Ph.D., ” the notion of broken windows has provided important insights and innovation to the field of policing. At times, however, these ideas have been misunderstood, misapplied, and often viewed outside the context of community policing. Broken windows is based on the notion that signs of incivility, like broken windows, signify that nobody cares, which leads to greater fear of crime and a reduction of community efficacy, which in turn can lead to more serious crimes and greater signs of incivility, repeating the cycle into a potential spiral of decay. For police, the insight of broken windows is that they are called on to address minor quality-of-life offenses and incidents of social disorder to prevent more serious crime, and that they must take specific steps to increase the capacity of communities to exert informal social control. Just as many have inaccurately reduced community policing to community relations, others have incorrectly reduced broken windows to merely zero tolerance or order enforcement policies, with little regard for community concerns or outcomes. In fact, broken windows advocates for the careful implementation of these specific police tactics so that individual rights and community interests are respected. In addition, broken windows stresses the importance of including communities in the change process, with the primary goal being the development of informal social control mechanisms within the communities in

question and not merely increased enforcement of minor offenses.”
Some consider the theory to be narrow in scope and the primary policy that fits well in the community police perspective. The theory doesn’t attempt to identify specific changes in law enforcement or to interfere with police interventions. At times the theory can help to advance changes needed for interventions more successful. The community can focus on hiring officers, building better support, proper analysis and specific efforts to engage communities to facilitate order-maintenance interventions.
Now I will show some examples of the theory and how it has helped or changed the communities. These will include Anaheim California, Irving Texas, and Longmont Colorado. In Anaheim, in the 90’s, community policing was only the responsibility of people in a specialized section of law enforcement. At this time, the city was having significant gang, drug, and vandalism in a heavily populated neighborhood. A team of 7 community policing officers, responsible for addressing these problems used traditional enforcement tactics to decrease crime. They met with some success, they had been arresting between 30 and 40 persons per month during which time crime did not decrease. A year later, they acknowledged the situation had not improved, and began to realize they needed the help of other city agencies to improve the issue of crime in the city. A team of city agencies which includes the city manager, police, code enforcement, public works, utilities, and the city attorney, was formed to work collectively with the neighborhood to address crime. A variety of efforts, such as prohibiting street parking, enforcing code regulations and increased lighting on roadways and around buildings, parking areas, etc. After these efforts were implemented, the crime in the area decreased by almost 80 percent.
Next city is Irving, Texas. The city began steps in 2005 by hosting a Community Engagement, in which police and community stakeholders learn about and apply SARA (scanning, analysis, response, assessment) to community problems. The sessions educate officers how to handle neighborhood issues effectively. The plan included goals such as promote new image of Irving’s natural environment, promote vibrant neighborhoods, improve on the standard for a safe and secure city, enhance Irving’s infrastructure. Decrease crime by having community problem solving discussions. Develop programs for students to promote learning and interest in the community.
Longmont Colorado will be my next example.

In Longmont they came up with a strategy. It included 4 sections, Inform, Consult, Involve, and Partner. In the inform section discussions included understanding the problem. In the consult section, obtain feedback on decisions, analysis, or alternatives. In the involve section, collaborate with the community, ensure issues and concerns are addressed. In the partner section, work with the public in decision making, develop alternatives, all input is weighed equally. “Longmont Police views community policing as a way of doing business, and it works to engage and partner with other municipal agencies on community crime and disorder issues. It recognizes that other departments have expertise, knowledge, and resources that can help resolve or minimize crime problems, and it partners with them. The department also strives to involve the community in problem-solving issues and works to increase its transparency and demonstrate its service orientation. For example, engaging the community is one of the areas in which officer performance is evaluated. Further, community members, including high school seniors identified by the department’s school resource officers and graduates of the citizens’ academy, as well as representatives from the criminal justice system (e.g., judges, probation officials), serve on the department’s hiring and promotion

boards.”
The Broken Window Theory, has been adopted by many law enforcement agencies, city governments, and community police departments. There is controversy on both sides of the issue as to whether the theory is valid or not and whether or not it belongs in community government and law enforcement agencies around the country. Some people believe that it has helped in the issue of crime in their communities and neighborhoods, on the other side people believe that it has had no impact on the crime in their communities.
References
Criminal Justice: The Essentials Third Edition http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Broken+window+theory http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1929803/broken-windows-theory
By Adam J. McKee
http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/January_2009/nugget.htm
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e050919202-AdvCommunityPolicing_final.pdf