Our discussion in class this Wednesday about the efficacy of “Broken Widows” policing definitely got me thinking about the “slippery slope” logical device. Arguments that utilize this device claim that relatively small first steps in the wrong direction can lead to larger and larger subsequent steps in the wrong direction, with disastrous results. The idea that if small, mostly harmless crimes like turnstile hopping and public intoxication go unpunished criminals will be encouraged to commit larger crimes seems to be the basis on which Broken Windows policing is justified.
I only bring this up because logically, Broken Windows is sound. What Bob Gangi sees as a problem is the way the theory is enforced. I don’t have a problem with police cleaning up the streets; but if the statistics Bob supplied are true, and this method has resulted in the establishment of “quotas” which are biased towards minority neighborhoods, then somewhere along the line the police lost the plot.
I think the article we read had a great closer: “…the police ought to protect communities as well as individuals”. The problem, I think, is that cops are people, and incapable of separating their personal biases from their enforcement of the law. The historical influences of racism and discrimination are still at play in society’s subconscious. This extends, unfortunately, even to the cops, who have the power to define which communities are more important to protect. I’m glad there are people like Bob taking steps to bring this issue to light.
Robert Mayo
