In hypothetical situations, broken windows theory makes sense. It’s logical that residents of a neighborhood will feel safer if small crimes are kept in check; it’s also logical that a neighborhood will feel unsafe if small crimes are rampant. However, when it comes to actually implementing this theory, there is a lot of room for error, which can have serious and dire consequences.

In class, Bob Gangi talked about the shortcomings of broken windows theory, with a focus on abuse of police power. We discussed the various cases of racially biased police brutality that have occurred in recent years – black men have been killed for committing petty crimes or “looking suspicious.” We also discussed stop and frisk quotas, and how policies like this make a neighborhood’s residents distrustful of the police charged with keeping them safe.

In my view, broken windows theory is valid, but must be used with caution. In an ideal world, where police are respectful of the residents of a neighborhood and react appropriately to crimes depending on their severity, I could see broken windows theory working. Until then, reforms need to be made dealing with how the police interact with the people they work for.

Sarah Dunford

I couldn’t help but feel slightly offended while reading this article. It seemed as if the author thought that by mentioning some of the flaws in his argument, he would invalidate them. Stating the possibility that police officers attempting to “…maintain the racial or ethnic purity of a neighborhood…” is unacceptable, does not mean that it won’t happen and does not boost his credibility. I felt as if he was trying to prove that he was not influenced by his own, personal racial undertones because he was aware of them and acknowledged them – however, this article is obviously dated. On the most basic level, this argument does make sense, but it puts too much weight on the discretion of enforcing officers. He frames the police as the responsible moral enforcers of the neighborhood, and the good guys with good intentions in every case. Mentioning the role that race issues “may” play in how these discretionary laws are to be enforced, does not make his argument any more believable of free from these flaws.

The base issue is that Broken Windows fails to consider the very real prejudices that exist in our society and within our police force. On paper it does appear that this form of policing will keep our neighborhoods safer and more orderly, however, prejudices against people of color, members of the LGBT+ community, the homeless, etc. make it so that broken windows only increases a mistrust of police forces. A mistrust of the police only creates a greater disregard for the work of the police and thus an increase in the very crimes that broken windows policing seeks to end. The Atlantic article mentions the shift of police being a force to maintain order to a force of actual law enforcement over the last two decades. The issue with this shift is that the police are not concerned with maintaining order at all, but instead end up contributing to disorder. This can be seen in the many anti-police riots of the past years in which situations were escalated, instead of de-escalated by police officers, resulting in a complete loss of order and abuse by the police. The objective of order has been lost in a complete focus on enforcing laws, including many minor “broken windows” laws. It is because of this that Broken Windows policing hasn’t worked and will not work. When police can drop all prejudices and fully focus on their civic duty to maintain order and safety for all citizens (even those suspected of committing crimes) then broken windows could be valid. Unfortunately, this world does not exist and so another way must be found. Our best option may be a balance between the maintenance of order and the enforcement of law. At the moment, the balance has shifted too far in one direction.

Paul Root

Broken windows, when it first came about, was a logical solution to crime as it paid attention to the human instinct to follow the influence of their peers and more inadvertently, their environment. I believe there to validity in the fact that humans will be more likely to act out in areas of chaos rather than those of order. However, I think broken windows policing has become an enemy to society as soon as it began to border along racial lines. A larger number of enforcements was put into black and Hispanic communities over white ones. This made it so almost all of the arrests for minor infractions were of people of color. As soon as this became the norm, people of color also became the majority of people arrested for minor infractions in predominantly white neighborhoods. Broken windows policing was further ruined with the inauguration of police quotas. This, obviously, would turn the public against the police force — as harmful arrests were made for harmless people.

Had broken windows policing focused on stopping crimes that could have actually led to further crimes, among ALL people, without the pressure of quotas… maybe it could have become a system we could all agree on.

Laura James

There is a reason that ideas and reality are two separate concepts. Broken Windows theory sounds feasible and promising by definition, but alas, it is only a theory. It seems logical that in order to decrease crime and violence on a large scale, you have to start small. An environment which frowns upon turnstile jumping, public intoxication, and loitering must also frown upon muggings, drug deals, and even murder. If police crack down on those smaller crimes, it creates a community where people feel safer, even if the crime rate is the same. However, when police are assigned quotas to give out summons and tickets, they must spend more time writing than policing. And when you tell someone that their job will be in danger if they don’t meet their quota, obviously they will meet it. But how will they go about it? Well, this is where Broken Windows theory falls apart.

As Bob Gangi brought to our attention, the statistical evidence clearly shows that minorities, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, are particularly targeted by policies such as Broken Windows. When a police officer must make a quick judgment about which citizens may be suspicious or possibly criminal, the unfortunate realities of racism and prejudice come out. It is sad that in today’s society, racism still drives many people, whether consciously or not, but it’s the truth. I believe that Broken Windows is a great theory, and perhaps could work in a more unbiased or smaller community, but legislation which perpetrates the theory simply does not work in New York City.

Casey Sniffin

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

The implementation of Broken Windows Theory in city policing is based in valid research that illustrates that if we let minor crimes and disorder go unchecked, the execution of larger crimes is a likely result. However, what constitute minor crimes in our city are not free of bias. Often, instead of trying to keep order with more strict policing, officers end up criminalizing poverty. For example, vandalism and jay walking are both misdemeanors that the average person could easily commit and that the average person could easily avoid. Petty theft and fare evasion, on the other hand, are equally punishable by law, but are often committed by those who cannot afford basic needs like food and (in the city) transportation.

Race and economic status are so closely tied in our society, that the perpetuation of criminalizing poverty in this way is disproportionately putting behind bars African Americans and other minorities. To let policing influenced by Broken Windows Theory continue in this manner will only result in greater interracial tension and also greater tension between minorities and authorities. The role of law enforcement in any city should be to induce safety but today, more often than not, law enforcement is inciting public fear. The failed application of Broken Windows Theory to law enforcement in New York City should be a wake-up call to politicians to start addressing so called “crimes” of survival, like stealing food and turn-style hopping, as part of the larger economic issues they embody.

Ariel Avgi

The “Broken Windows” theory is a gateway to over-criminalization and distrust between officers and community members. The theory rests on the belief that small crimes like vandalism, public urination, public intoxication, etc. encourage more crime and create an air of negligence that justifies further negative behavior. Therefore, according to the theory, the best way to stop a neighborhood from becoming a “bad neighborhood” is to nip the negligence in the bud by punishing those infractions. That means punishing people for sleeping on public benches instead of in our overcrowded and underfunded shelters, or punishing those who choose to urinate on the street instead of in the public restrooms we don’t have. The Broken Windows Theory promotes overcriminalization because it makes this arguably poor conduct much more criminal than it is. If a neighborhood is being constantly punished “protected” in this way, it would breed discontent between officials and residents. Granted, some may find the neighborhood to feel safer, regardless of the lack of a significant statistical change,  but this doesn’t change the fact that we would be punishing people for things they may not have a choice in. It also fills their record with infractions and could have grave immigration consequences. Broken Windows could give officers greater power and give them a license to try and push out the people that make that neighborhood unsafe or unpleasant. Unfortunately, due to prejudice and the demographic of those most in need, that usually minority populations like Latin@s and African Americans. That police power can quickly turn into discrimination and broken trust, which is harder to fix than a broken window.

-Sindi

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

I learned about the broken windows theory prior to this class and I had quite a naive view of the theory. I never really took the time to think about the real-life applications and implications of such a theory. After reading about broken windows policing and listening to Bob Gangi speak about the racial injustices as a result of broken windows policing, I started to question the effectiveness of the theory. As I considered the positives and negatives of broken windows policing, I started to wonder, if done differently, could broken windows policing be beneficial?

 
There is no doubt in my mind that current applications of broken windows policing, which include quotas and targeting minority populations, are simply wrong. There is good intent but the execution of broken windows policing is absolutely terrible. In the video we watched, I recall a man saying that broken windows policing is not a bad thing and if done differently it can be helpful. Is that really true? Can we, as a people, trust that the police will reform? To answer yes to this question, once again, seems naive. I’m not exactly sure what can, and should be done, to improve community wellness and prevent crimes but I know that forcing police officers to meet quotas builds an even bigger rift between communities and the police force and results in the victimization colored minorities. It obviously doesn’t work, so maybe it’s time to try something new.

-Yashoma Boodhan