This week’s readings had a focus on the broken-windows theory of law enforcement. I think this is an important issue to address, because there is the idea that this type of policing is improving the way of life for everyone and also that laws like these that address lower-level crimes are equally enforced for all members of a given population. However, we have seen, especially for anti-vagrancy laws, that this is not the case. Often for laws like no drinking in public, urination in public, loitering or sleeping on public transit, the enforcement is very subjective, with emphasis on criminalizing acts that are done by homeless people, for instance. This allows for gaps in the system to target people based on housing status, gender, sexuality, race, and other classifications that allow for minority marginalization. To address this unequal enforcement of the law, we should first bring attention to the fact that these policies may have been designed to improve the quality of life for all, but are instead causing stark divisions in our society.

Question: How can we modify zero tolerance policing to maintain a society in which personal biases and prejudices are not as easily allowed to affect law enforcement?

There is no policy that does not have both pros and cons, and the only sources provided for today’s reading are regarding the cons of quality of life policing. But coming from an area where jails were overcrowded for serious offences, so people who’d committed lesser crimes were booked and released – and it was always the same people getting booked – the logic behind quality of life policing makes sense. It’s probably something I would support. Whether or not it was excessive aside – and I really can’t say either way, there was no statistical evidence given (the Erzen article stated that the number of homicides had risen over 1999-2000, but provided no evidence for any other crime rate; it was all mostly anecdotal in both that and the INCITE pamphlet) – it did what it claimed. Did it clean up NYC? Most likely – the sources aren’t arguing against that. Did it catch people wanted for greater crimes on lesser charges? Again, most likely – but as no solid evidence was provided on this, I can’t say. But saying that arrests are higher after a policy designed to – honestly – increase arrests is too obvious.

Question: Why do or don’t you support quality of life policing? In light of today’s reading, do you think it would be effective if the policy were altered, or should it be scrapped altogether?

It was very interesting learning about the laws that actually support the unethical and atrocious behavior of cops towards the people.

I feel like what the people in charge of the city at that time meant to do with the safety of the streets was a good thing. But, unfortunately, us human beings tend to take advantage of the power given to us and so we end up distorting the purpose of many things, such as the “zero tolerance” law. Nonetheless, it was a ruthless law, as well as the “quality of life” policing. It seems quite ironic to me that the people who were supposed to keep order and enforce the law on everyone, equally—the word “equally” didn’t seem to have much meaning back then. I wonder if people think that we still see somewhat of this behavior nowadays? And what do they think is the cause of such behavior?

I do know one thing for sure, the root for racism back then was easily political more than just a social issue that affected, not just the blacks, but the lower income class. Which could lead to the conclusion that any other state government that ended up implementing these laws that were first tested out here in NYC, were just as racist and/or biased as NYC at that point in time.

“Quality of life” policing first started in the 1990s when Giuliani was mayor, and it has been adopted into broken windows policing which Mayor Bill de Blasio currently advocates. This form of policing focuses on arresting those who commit misdemeanors in order to prevent more serious crimes from occurring. I believe that this form of policing is doing more harm than good. Police brutality has been increasing, even for the smaller crimes such as drinking in public or urinating. “Quality of life” also targets minority groups as well as the homeless. I think this is unfair. Those who are homeless should not be getting harassed by the police for sleeping in public. I think the police should not waste their time on making arrests for crimes that are not making the city unsafe. A person urinating in public is not as serious of a crime as rape or murder is. The police should be focusing on these more serious crimes that affect the safety of an individual. The broken windows policy and police brutality contributed to the death of Eric Garner, who was arrested for selling cigarettes on a Staten Island street. He was put into an illegal chokehold that ended his life. Another important thing the city should focus on besides crime is how the police are conducting themselves while on the job.

Question: Do you think that the broken windows policy is helping to prevent more serious crimes from occurring?

Collectively, all three articles portray “Quality of Life” policing and the Broken Windows Theory as concepts that are based on unreasonable assumptions about humanity itself.  In Giuliani Time: The Revanchist 1990s, Neil Smith states that Giuliani blamed “the downward spiral of urban decay” on graffiti artists, unruly youth, homeless people, panhandlers, prostitutes among other clusters of individuals.  Once these factors for unrest were identified, policy in the ‘betterment of New York City’ was created around pushing out those signs of disorder.  This folds itself over into the Broken Window Theory generated by George Kelling and James Wilson.  In Turnstile Jumpers and Broken Windows,Tanya Erzen states that the broken window theory is based on the idea that an area that looks disorderly gives way to more serious crimes.  This disorderly aesthetic includes the presence of homeless individuals, broken windows and trash covered streets.  So there comes along this theory that supports the idea that these groups on individuals that Giuliani states cause the city to look disorderly, actually increase the crime rate.  Ultimately this system of thinking finally gives way to quality of life policing.  In the article “Quality of Life” Policing, it states that there is massive amount of power given to police to decide who gets punished on a major level for minor crimes such as  panhandling and littering.  This is justified under the idea that, as Erzen states, “…New York is a city where graffiti taggers, turnstile jumpers, and kids in a public park are either already criminals or simply criminals in the making”.  Yet, the more that I look at the ideas presented in these articles, the more I see explanations that are made up in order support a horrible solution to a societal problem.  Just by giving the police power to aggressively eradicate anything that they deem looks “disorderly” does not cause a more stable society, but a society that fears its justice system instead of depends on it.  What we need to look towards is not “quality of life” policing, that boils people down into simple beings and allows some police officers to easily act on prejudice tendencies, but create a system that brings about equality and a community’s faith in the police system.

“Quality of Life” policing, derived from the broken window theory that Mayor De Blasio supports, is a tactic in which minor wrongdoings like public urination and loitering are more policed. “Quality of Life” policing is supposed to improve the quality of life of New Yorkers, but whose life does it really improve? This policy, along with the “zero tolerance” policy, which advocates zero tolerance with minor crimes that are seen as being an epidemic, are often applied unequally and discriminatorily. Police often apply these policies to immigrants, women, African Americans, the homeless and others at a disadvantage. The end result often times is arrest or even death, as was the case for Margaret Mitchell, for the suspect, who is often a minority. This was the case for Eric Gardener, an African American father, who died of a chokehold at the hands of broken window theory. Clearly, these policies improve the quality of life for certain not all, people

Question: Why is “Quality of Life” policing still being used despite its use of racial profiling?

Order maintaining policing, is a combination of zero tolerance and quality of life policing. This combined policing method drives police brutality, targeting of people of color, and an increase criminalization. It was introduced and implemented by Mayor Giuliani, and spread to other major cities. The quality of life allows officers to criminalize anyone whose conduct seems disorderly or unlawful. This allows officers to act on their biased, and criminalizing people because of race, gender, sexual orientation, and class.

Through order maintaining policies, the trust between the community and police department has turned into wariness. Instead of improving the quality of life in the community, the order maintaining policing has caused a division between the community and the police. Minorities that have been often targeting by the police have shown if a crime were to occur, they would not report it to the police even if they were the victims. Ironically, that the quality of life policing does not improve the quality of life, especially minorities.

Question: How did the vague laws that underlie the quality of life, even get approved?

The Broken Windows Theory of policing seems like a great policy on paper, but in the real world, it isn’t as easy to implement. First of all, having enough officers on the streets and enough surveillance to be able to catch every small crime seems very problematic. Moreover, claiming that one group of people/area seems to have more crime than another is just another reason that the police can use as an excuse to use “police force.” As both “Giuliani Times” and “Quality of Life Policing” discuss, police brutality increased when this policy was implemented in New York City. That’s because police had a reason to be suspicious of certain people and if these people did anything that could be categorized as a crime, it would be and if “necessary” police force would be used. It is completely unfair how loopholes, or in this case, vague language in the laws can lead to so much violence. This is actually an ongoing cycle, police believe that people are committing crimes, they act in accordance by being harsher to these people, and the people who may not be committing crimes know that the police believe them to commit crimes anyways, so those people go ahead and commit crimes. It’s a psychological principle called the self-fulfilling prophecy and is not the right way to enforce laws in a city.

Question: Is there any way to have a balance of policing in the city?

These readings definitely do not portray Rudy Giuliani and his administration in a positive light. The Quality of Life campaign, based on the “broken window theory,” operates on such flawed logic that it boggles the mind. It is only superficially positive: who wouldn’t want order, safety, and aesthetic? However, when scratches beneath the surface of this campaign, one sees it for what it is: a way to treat symptoms without addressing their causes. And this, most people would agree, is folly. Shooing homeless people, arresting pan-handlers, breaking up innocuous, if not angsty, groups of teenagers – these fail to address root problems both in New York and the broader context of the United States. We are living in an age of massive inequality that provides an acidic environment for societal illness to flourish. As a result, chronic poverty, unemployment, and even literal health problems continue to erode the wellbeing of America. It is terribly offensive for Kelling, as cited in Erzen’s piece, to suggest poverty is a matter of choice. Like hell it is! This policy is woefully misguided, having the effect of targeting both the homeless and people of color, without actually providing any visible evidence of actual improvement in “quality of life.”

I found this week’s readings particularly interesting since I have briefly learned about zero tolerance and broken windows concepts in my social psychology class. While these policies administer order they can be too strict and take away freedom. As a result, police officers become seen as a threat instead of as a source protection. While reading I found some of the stories unbelievable and shocking. It seems as though the more power one has, the more likely they are to abuse it. Furthermore, this reading reminded me of a personal instance of when I received a ticket for crossing from one subway cart to another. It was on the 5 train in Flatbush and I was simply in a rush. The officers ran my ID and saw that I had no felonies or any other offences but still chose to give me the ticket instead of a warning. Therefore, people committing “small crimes” are not necessarily criminals even though there are those rare cases. I agree that when the city looks better you feel better about it as well, but people shouldn’t always be punished for minuet crimes.

Question: At what point does the control become too much?