The Broken Window Theory is an approach to urban crime control developed in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling (Wigmore, 2015). The theory proposes that shattered windows and graffiti are disorderly conditions that might foster criminal activity. The disorder proves that spaces are not utilized effectively or kept safely (O’Brien et al., 2019). Hence, the strategy promotes the prompt correction of apparent symptoms of the disorder to reduce crime and enhance public safety. Increased police presence in high-crime areas, stricter penalties for minor violations, and data-driven policing tactics to identify and target prospective crime hotspots are all examples of how this approach has been implemented.
Many towns have successfully implemented the Broken Window Theory. The hypothesis has reduced crime and increased community involvement in crime prevention. Community ownership and accountability encourage crime prevention and safety. New York City’s 1990s Broken Window theory program reduced crime (Braga et al., 2015, p. 569). In the past 20 years, the murder rate in New York City has vastly reduced to 4 per 100, 000 below the national average of 4.5 despite criticism. (Bratton & Kelling, 2019, p. 3). The New York City Broken Windows strategy has reduced crime despite criticism. However, the policy’s efficacy and influence on diverse communities must be carefully evaluated. Over the past few years publication of deaths of many African-Americans, in most cases at the hands of white police officers, has led to the broken windows theory being criticized for its effectiveness (Kelling, 2015, p. 2). Critics further say the idea ignores poverty, inequality, and opportunity, which are the primary drivers of crime.
Some individuals have voiced concerns that the Broken Window Theory might lead to discrimination, especially against vulnerable populations. Minority populations are said to be disproportionately affected by the policy’s potential for over-policing and the prosecution of minor infractions. This can lead to persons being dealt with unjustly by the policy. In New York, for example, in most cases, it was found that African-Americans and Latinos were, in most cases, likely to be stopped compared to other races despite no indication that they were involved in criminal behavior. New York Police officers conducted approximately 250,000 stops for concealed weapons in 2008, and only one-fifteenth of 1 percent of those turned up with a gun (Vedantam et al., 2016).
Notwithstanding its shortcomings, the Broken Window Theory may be utilized relatively. Law enforcement training should detect and address unconscious biases. Establishing policy implementation guidelines and community involvement in decision-making and community-based solutions to crime’s root causes is essential. Building community-police trust can improve public safety. This requires addressing crime’s root causes of poverty, unfairness, and opportunity. To avoid systematic biases and inequality, monitor the policy’s benefits. The policy must defend public safety and individual dignity. Frequent review and adjustment of the policy’s results help guarantee fair and equal application. How it is implemented, and the resources available to communities determine whether the Broken Window Theory policy promotes fair treatment or reinforces prevailing prejudices and inequities.
The Broken Window theory, like a coin, has two sides, and arguments have been raised on which side should be vastly considered, the approach’s pros or cons of the idea. Supporters of the strategy point to its efficacy in lowering crime rates by preventing minor infractions from developing into major ones. By decreasing crime and strengthening collaborative relationships, they claim the approach can also boost residents’ quality of life (Kelling & Coles, 1996). However, some argue that increased police presence and harsher penalties for minor offenses would unfairly affect minority communities. They worry that this strategy would lead to unfair police targeting of specific populations, weakening trust between authorities and the public and ultimately leading to more criminal behavior.
In my opinion, the Broken Window Theory policy’s drawbacks outweigh its benefits. It may lower crime but hurt socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Broken Window Theory promotes racial profiling and discrimination towards communities of color, damaging police-community interactions. The policy’s focus on evident disturbance may lead law enforcement to target impoverished regions, increasing arrests, fines, and convictions that entrench inequalities. The Broken Window Theory may also hinder crime prevention. The policy’s focus on broken windows and graffiti may give the impression that the community is unsafe and requires greater enforcement, perpetuating a cycle of criminalization and social control. Crime stems from poverty, injustice, and opportunity. Such policies perpetuate structural imbalances and social divides, harming community well-being. The Broken Window Theory also pushes law enforcement and the criminal justice system to tackle complex socioeconomic concerns, limiting community-led efforts and promoting punitive justice. This policy may harm law enforcement-community relations.
After analyzing the policy’s background and possible drawbacks, I recommend reviewing the policy to emphasize community-based policing tactics that would create relationships and build trust between the police and the communities giving rise to collaboration between the two parties. The procedure can effectively address public safety issues without aggravating inequities or unnecessarily singling out disadvantaged groups.
The new strategy may be implemented through initiatives to strengthen ties between local authorities and residents. One way to accomplish this goal is to schedule frequent community activities and meetings between law enforcement and residents to address local safety issues and brainstorm solutions.
Law enforcement, community organizations, and others may form community-based task groups under the modified policy. These task groups may address neighborhood safety issues. Furthermore, police training should stress de-escalation and conflict resolution under the new policy. This reduces unhealthy police-community confrontation, which helps nobody. Socially oriented-community policing may improve public safety without punishment. These initiatives combat poverty, unemployment, and poor education and healthcare. In stable, egalitarian societies, resources minimize crime and increase public safety. Socioeconomic gaps cause crime, according to this perspective. Addressing these concerns through community-based programming reduces crime. Community resources may improve and protect lives. Community policing may strengthen police-community relations and reduce crime. This is essential as the communities may assist law enforcement in identifying their concerns and societal issues.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Broken Window Hypothesis has been much debated since the 1980s until now. The supporters argue that its implementation and adoption in Some towns have decreased crime rates, while the opposers say it targets disadvantaged people leading to systemic discrimination. Also, the policy’s tough sanctions increased imprisonment in some cities. However, this issue can be resolved through programs such as community-based policing. These programs promote police-public relations and hence public safety and cooperation. Community engagement in law enforcement decision-making reduces vulnerable group targeting. Revising the Broken Window Theory would require addressing the root causes of crime in society. The root cause of crimes could include lack of education, joblessness, and mental health illnesses. Once these causes are, addressed, one can minimize the crime rate. To reduce community violence, police training should stress de-escalation and conflict resolution. Forming community task groups to address public safety issues is also essential in improving theory effectiveness. Task forces may combat gangs, drug trafficking, and community engagement. Also, research-based, cooperative, and equitable policies may make neighborhoods safer and more equal. Lastly, policymakers must critically assess the Broken Window Theory and other comparable strategies to avoid perpetuating inequality or unfairly targeting disadvantaged individuals.
References
Braga, A. A., Welsh, B. C., & Schnell, C. (2015). Can Policing Disorder Reduce Crime? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(4), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815576576
Kelling, & Bratton. (2015, June 18). Why We Need Broken Windows Policing. Retrieved from https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-we-need-broken-windows-policing-13696.html
Kelling. (2015, August 11). Do not Blame My ‘Broken Windows’ Theory For Poor Policing. POLITICO Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/broken-windows-theory-poor-policing-ferguson-kelling-121268/
O’Brien, D. P., Farrell, C., & Welsh, B. C. (2019). Broken (windows) theory: A meta-analysis of the evidence for the pathways from neighborhood disorder to resident health outcomes and behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, pp. 228, 272–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.015
Vedantam, S., Benderev, C., Boyle, T., Klahr, R., Penman, M., & Schmidt, J. (2016, November 1). How A Theory Of Crime And Policing Was Born, And Went Wrong | WBUR. WBUR.org. https://www.wbur.org/npr/500104506/broken-windows-policing-and-the-origins-of-stop-and-frisk-and-how-it-went-wrong
Wigmore, I. (2015, September 22). Broken window theory. Retrieved from https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/broken-window-theory
write