I have been against the practices of broken windows policing for several years. I knew that it was implemented badly and that it facilitated discrimination. However, reading the Atlantic article and talking with Bob Gangi last week have convinced me that broken windows policy is based on fundamentally flawed reasoning, and that it cannot be improved.
First, it assumes that healthy communities depend on public order, which is based on strict obedience to the laws and assumed mores of the area. Public shows of disorder, even if they are not technically illegal, cause a slippery slide to total anarchy and chaos. However, not all social standards apply equally in all neighborhoods, and slight disorder, such as teenagers walking in groups or playing music, can be both safe and nonviolent. Enforcing order to the exclusion of all else is not always necessary or constructive. Also, it may be impossible for a police officer to tell the difference between safe and unsafe behaviors, which is made more dangerous when the officer is granted deadly force.
Second, broken windows policy assumes total agency on the part of the urban poor, and ignores underlying circumstances and social context, which influence which options are available to them. The decision to jump the turnstile is always in the hands of the actor. However, when faced with the necessity of getting home without money for a fare, the law becomes less important. Similarly, when someone doesn’t believe they can achieve a good life through normal channels, breaking the law may seem like the only option. Perhaps crime and disorder can only be prevented by altering the circumstances which contribute to them. Broken and unfair systems can propped up by crime fighting, but they cannot change until their causes are evaluated.
Third, the broken windows mindset applies the slippery slope idea unequally. It assumes that people will do whatever they want if they believe that they will not be punished. However, if this is true with the poor, shouldn’t it be true with the police themselves? Could roughing up a shoplifter be the first step towards greater brutality? Every person and case are unique, but both possibilities are dangerous, and if we admit that our axioms cannot be applied equally to everyone, they should be questioned.
Finally, where arrests are emphasized over actual enforcement, the individual judgements of cops are ignored. The quota system assumes not only that citizens are guilty before they are proven innocent, but that they should be treated as guilty before they have done anything wrong. This is the essence of the broken windows concept. The quota system is not an example of poor execution. Broken windows cannot exist without the quota system, or something like it. Aside from being unfair, quotas are a waste of police time and public money, and do more harm than good.
Henry Burby
