DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Broken Windows

So for anyone following the Implications of Racism thread, I mentioned briefly about the Broken Windows Theory in regards to Clem's plans to dedicate proactive resources in cleaning up sections of a city in order to re-vitalize them. For about the last 15-20 years many police agencies have used the Broken Windows theory.

Broken Windows was a model developed under Mayor Giuliani in the 90's. At the time of his election NYC, particularly sections of Manhattan were terrible. Rampant prostitution, open drug use, assaults, robberies, general muggings, breaking and enterings, and murder rates were some of the highest in the U.S.

In order to clean that area up, officers were directed to aggressively enforce the minor things: littering, begging, selling loosies, arresting the guys who would wash your windows without your permission then come at you when you wouldn't pay them, prostitution, etc. Basically, the little things you see cops enforcing but feel like its nothing but harassment.

What they found was that many of the people they arrested for the minor things, were ALSO responsible for the more serious offenses. As these people were taken off of the streets for the little stuff, the more serious crime rates plummeted. Gone are all the seedy porn and XXX shops, and in their place are clean streets and viable businesses. As I think I mentioned NYC used to be one of the murder capitals of the U.S. Now I believe they average between 300 and 400 per year... in a city of 12-15 MILLION. That's amazing. For scale, the city of St. Louis has a population of about 270,000?? They had just over 170 murders last year.

Now I do have to point out, Giuliani had a very heavy handed approach to the implementation and many New Yorkers couldn't wait until his final term in office was up and he was out. Then 9/11 happened and the city rallied around the leadership he provided. IMO had 9/11 not happened, Giuliani wouldn't enjoy the popularity he does now.

But the Broken Windows Theory was proven to be sound and to work! And so many agencies adopted it and adapted it to their communities.

The thing is, it also doesn't work.

There is a key component to NYC's success with the theory that many other cities don't have and I think its been a contributing factor in the divide some policing agencies have with their communities.

In NYC, when they were able to push out the bad people and businesses, they were quickly replaced with reputable people and businesses. Basically, they forced out the crappy neighbor with the messy yard, and got someone who takes care of their property. Now the whole neighborhood looks wonderful again.

The problem most cities have is that much of the enforcement of these smaller crimes is done in poor, urban, residential areas. Even when you take the bad people off the streets, there is no one that comes and replaces them.

Remember when I said that the types of minor stuff enforced are things many people would view as the police harassing people? Well that's exactly what the communities started looking at as, even to many of the law abiding people in those poor neighborhoods because they aren't seeing any kind of real result from that level of enforcement. Houses are still crappy, people still don't have jobs, etc etc. Their quality of life hasn't improved all that much.

What's then created is this vicious cycle where when the police do go into those neighborhoods, few people are willing to cooperate. SO the police say, ok, why bother, no one wants to help. Then the community says "Where were the police?!" when something serious does happen. Then we show up and no one wants to 'be a snitch'.

I think some agencies are catching on to the reality that Broken Windows isn't going to be the best solution for every city. Right now the buzz word in law enforcement is 'Community Policing'. I call it a buzz word because CP can vary widely from agency to agency. CP in one city could be coordinating Community Watch programs... CP in another agency could be a unit of officers who aggressively go after gang members. Currently there is no singular model for Community Policing but that's ok! IMO there shouldn't be. Those programs need to be developed between the agency and the people they serve.

So, there it is. Hopefully I provided a little more insight as to the Why agencies do what they do and are trying to do. BTW, this is not an endorsement of NYPD as a whole. They have some practices that I'm not a fan of and aren't widely practiced by other agencies such as 'Stop and Frisk'.

If there is a market, then someone will fill it ..... even if it is illegal to do so.

I really don't know what the ultimate answer is.

The answer is to have the city line up investors to revitalize an area. Have them have a plan to do so, then when you have buy-in from investors, you implement this kind of policy to clean it up.

In NYC, where real estate is at a premium (to say the least!), this is super easy to do... clean something up and businesses will flock there, especially in a lower-rent area. They get in on the ground floor of things getting cleaned up and make a ton.

But that doesn't solve the residential problem. Now certainly you can line up residential real estate development (I see it daily in my city)... but the low-rent people have to go somewhere. Demolishing one project doesn't improve the quality of life for THOSE residents.. all it means is they migrate to another part of the city.

I understand your point, I wouldn't aggressively arrest people for small offences, that's only going to increase mistrust, frustration and anger with the police. Instead of arresting people, I would just increase police force in this communities. Like you said in the other thread you patrol what 20k people? How can you do your job effectively if there is alot crime, you can't be at 2 places at once. Increase police officers and crime will reduce in the area.

Increasing police officers also presents its own challenges (though I know I could certainly use the help!)

-Budget concerns. Law enforcement doesn't produce anything of qualitative worth. It's very difficult to put a $$ value on public safety, and that includes Fire and EMS.

-The more police you put in a concentrated area thereby increasing their profile, you then have to balance that with the 'big gov't', 'militarization of the police' etc crowd. Now some of that can be mitigated with the level of enforcement action in relation to the level of offenses.

You might find this interesting: London had the first official police department. For a long time the police weren't allowed to inquire about your personal affairs which meant that they by law weren't allowed to investigate anything. If your house got broken into and you saw the suspect, that was the long and short of it. The police weren't allowed to find that person and ask them questions. Basically, if it didn't happen in front of them, you were out of luck. Imagine that? lol

Good post bro. Can't really argue with any of it.

I agree it is create its own challenges especially for budget concerns as well as actually finding people to become quality police officers. I know for a fact if you had police officers roaming a specific neighbourhood, crime will go down, no one will want to risk going to jail knowing there is a police officer patrolling the neighbourhood.