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?

I have a fundamental problem with the concept of Broken Window Policing, the same issue that has plagued the stop-and-frisk policy since its conception. Namely, that all crimes are equally, and that all breaches of morality are equally devastating. The idea behind Broken Windows policing is that people who commit minor crimes are equally as likely to commit major crimes, and therefore putting them behind bars after a minor crime will prevent major crimes. I believe that this policy ignores the inherent complexity of people. I don’t believe it naive to claim that there is a very solid moral divide between say, jumping the turnstiles, and rape. The assumption that someone would commit a minor crime out of desperation or immediate need would just as likely say, kill, is casting a universal stereotype that condemns innocent people to a potentially very difficult life. How can we control crime without instilling a policing system based upon gross assumptions or racial stereotypes?

In the first reading, a great point is made when the author says, “Whether crime has actually decreased is subject to debate considering that misdemeanor arrests have increased by fifty percent” (23). Bringing this to the national scale, isn’t this essentially the problem with our justice system? I know Lydia works very closely with research on the prison system in this country, so I want to try very hard not to sound stupid here, but isn’t the increase in arrests for minor charges, along with overly harsh punishments for said crimes, one of the biggest problems facing the “justice” system? Because of it, there are more people in jails and prisons, which have shown not to be correctional facilities but rather criminal-career-making facilities, which breed a kid that may have been locked up for having weed on him into a drug peddler for a gang establishment. And, because of these minor offenses, a person is then branded as second-class citizens, often making it much harder to maintain a legal job and pushing them further into criminal territory. My question, then, is how this is justified to be a sustainable practice? I feel as though, up to this point, these policies have been shown very blatantly to not work—so what is the justification for continuing them?

“Turnstile Jumpers and Broken Windows” by Tanya Erzen is quite a lengthy article, which led me to write this personal opinion heavy response. First and foremost, I found the term the term “visual disorder” to be an insensitive one because it’s used in a discussion the indecency of individuals, not of pornographic images. Secondly, I found hard to believe that everyday commuters were the ones to “demand a safer subway environment”, according to Kelling and Coles. I appreciated that the author points out questions not addressed in quality-of-life literature. The Quality of Life also appears to be riddled with ignorant arguments such as that made by Kelling who “emphasizes that  homelessness is not a result of structural issues like poverty or unemployment, but exists as a choice for many people”. Lastly, I am outraged not only by how the AVP is practiced but by the vague and complex legal wording as well. This point is illustrated well in the provision that states: “In the event of a member of the service, because of lack of experience, is unable to determine if the reason of the excessive noise emanating from a motorcycle is because of “straight pipes”, an Environmental Control Board Notice of Violation may still be issued”.

I find it interesting that in the final reading, “quality of life” policing is mentioned in tandem with the “broken windows” theory because I have the same problem with both. The ideas make sense – as, admittedly, the “trickle down theory” in economics does. However, these ideas are all contingent on the idea that people are inherently good and non-corrupt. In this case, the major issue I can see with “quality of life” policing is that the police can then use it as an excuse to bully and discriminate. There are definite targets for this type of treatment, and it makes me uncomfortable to know that the policing occurs without a real crime being committed. It’s similar to the “broken windows” excuse surrounding Stop and Frisk, where the policemen say they’re trying to uncover smaller crimes like drug possession or concealed weapons. Is there ever a situation in which “quality of life” policing would help rather than hinder everyone involved?