Broken Window Theory and Its Relevancy - Essay Example

Broken Window Theory and Its Relevancy

Introduction

In the concluding decades of the twentieth century several crime-controlling theories were thought out as a result of the governmental concern over the growing rate of crime in the urban populations. Broken windows theory was one such policy framed by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling first published in 1982 in The Atlantic Monthly (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p. 400). This theory was based on the notion that a key control measure in reducing the rate of crime can be the strict monitoring of disordered society as the disorder can encourage some neophytes to think that he can easily get away with his crime. The conclusion was taken from the observation of police patrolling in community in Newark to monitor the disordered activity. The inventors of this theory write that although the “foot patrol had not reduced crime rates… residents of foot-patrolled neighborhoods seemed to feel more secure than persons in other areas” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.400). This broken window imagery used by the authors was founded on the assumption that the then society ridden with crime was like a building with broken window. The authors argue that if “a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.402). This broken window theory is sought to roll out a model of appropriate monitoring of the society in order that it does not promote further crime.

Kelling and Wilson took it for granted that imitation is at the heart of developing crime. It is for this reason that the police intervention or other state intervention in the community life appeared to be essential to prevent major crimes in future. Their particular type of theorization of the impetus behind the increasing rate of crime is reflected in the following statement: “one unrepaired broken window I a signal that no one cares, and so breaking windows costs nothing” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.402). From the observation of the authors it can be deduced that the effective method for crime-control operates on three basic factors. First there needs to be an internal demand for conformity to social norms. Secondly, there should be some authority to envisage this conformation by the members of the society. And lastly, an inherently disordered society emits signals of fearless wrongdoing to the potential offenders. A major determinant of individual behavior is the social norm followed by a large number of productive members of the society. One individual’s act can motivate another irrespective of the implication of the action. In a communitarian society there is a uniform behavioral code that is not forced on the dwellers but accepted voluntarily. This uniformity is the result of the influences that one individual has on another. In other words people act according what the surrounding allows to do. The apprehension of the authors over the spiraling crime rate has, in fact, been preceded by the necessity to ensure a better social order where the commoners are safe and can live without fear. According to them citizens are “primarily frightened by crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger”, like drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers and prostitutes (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.401).

Broken window theory was notable at that point of time for taking into consideration certain facts, which were unacknowledged till then. But in the present time the relevancy of them is not beyond comprehension. It was the recording of undesirable behaviors, which are not criminal, in legal term. Such cases as ‘vagrancy’, ‘suspicious person’ and ‘drunkenness’ were not punishable in legal code but there was no reason to think that they were well acceptable to the society and harmless to the other civil members. As the criminologists and sociologists think this was due to the lack of universal standards “available to settle arguments over disorder” and the then prevalent tendency to handle this kinds of problems on the streets (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.407). During the time in question, such delinquency and sloppy attitude had ‘scarcely any legal meaning’. But in the contemporary crime scenario this kind of social disorder have been translated in well defined charges in legislature because, as the broken window analogy signifies, the security of the society requires an agency ‘to have the legal tools to remove undesirable persons from a neighborhood when informal efforts to preserve order in the streets have failed’ (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.407). As we can see in the present society that the civil society groups are on a flight to protect the interests of the civilians, the definition of a criminal act becomes increasingly important. The desire to see that the quasi civilians (a petty crime like public drinking does not label one as uncivil in present society) are fairly treated ‘makes us worry about allowing the police to rout persons who are undesirable by some vague or parochial standard’ (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.407). The political tendency to ‘decriminalize’ a disreputable behavior sometimes does not allow the police to intervention and take adequate measures. As a result the offender learns the trick of the trade and reengage in that socially acceptable act. But the author justly observes that the failure to anything on the preventive line can unarguably account for the scores of drunkards growing in number every day. This failure to do anything can lead to the destruction of an entire community. The broken window theory was not so much wrenched in its effort to give a satisfactory outline regarding the duty of the monitoring agency as it is in the contemporary context. The framers of this theory opined that the police selected for assigning the task should be well trained and supervised so that they are ‘inculcated with a clear sense of the outer limit of their discretionary authority’ (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.407).

In today society the people have become tired and sick with crime taking place every moment around them and ‘feel overwhelmed by its apparently relentless upward trend’ (O’Donnell and O’Sullivan, 2001, p.35). They want the concerned authority to take action against ‘drunken loutish behavior’, ‘intimidating gatherings of young people in public areas’, ‘the public use of obscene languages’, drug-dealing and prostitution’ (O’Donnell and O’Sullivan, 2001, p.35). It is in fact, clear that the theory of Wilson and Kelling implied that no insignificant crime could be tolerated owing to the peril that the tolerance of petty crime may propose. The book by O’Donnell and O’Sullivan deals with the crime control policies in Ireland. The book reports that in 1997 Fianna Fail published a policy titled ‘Leading the fight against crime’, which had two proposals in it (O’Donnell and O’Sullivan, 2001, p.35). One was thee introduction of 2000 additional prisons and the acceptance of the ‘Zero-tolerance’ in regard to crime. O’Donnell and O’Sullivan observed that the zero-tolerance policy of Fail was linked to the Broken window theory of Wilson and Kelling. The authors of the book defines zero-tolerance as “a shorthand term for criminal policies that are based on the principle that no crime is insignificant or will be overlooked and that tolerance of small crime creates a climate in which big crimes flourish” (O’Donnell and O’Sullivan, 2001, p.35). There is nothing to suggest that this definition is a refiguring, if not rewording, of the broken window theory. The gist of the broken window theory as conceived Wilson and Kelling is that any disorderly activity in one’s neighborhood can make the resident afraid. Their perceptions regarding crime rate will change. Then high-level disorder will lead them to assume that the rate of crime is rising and this in consequence can evoke anxiety in the community as a whole. “They will change their behavior using the street less often and avoiding contact with others. This will weaken community bond and increase individual isolation” (O’Donnell and O’Sullivan, 2001, p.36). Such occurring can make the area more favorable for criminal doings. According to Wilson and Kelling this environment can be more conductive of harboring prostitution, drug addiction, smuggling and other varieties of misdeeds than other places where informal control of public behavior guarantee a better social morality.

One of the very important points proposed in the broken window theory is that order-maintaining duty of police have been annexed with the law enforcement duty of the cops. Wilson and Kelling point out that this new drive of the police has often compelled them to face criticism from media, court and other authorities. ‘Order-maintaining function’ of the police refers to their responsibility in their community to control the any disreputable act, explicit or implied. Thus it allows the police to take action against any insignificant disciplinary failure apart from arresting a culprit. “The order-maintenance function of the police are now governed by ruled developed to control police relation with suspected criminal” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.406). The inventors of the broken window theory reflected that till then the role of the police had been defined by their objective that is to bring the criminal under the hammer. But the order-maintaining task would make them work to concentrate more on the procedure of their inspection thus leaving less opportunity for budding crimes.

Levinson detects that “prior to the development and implementation of various incivility theories such as broken windows police practitioners and scholars tended to focus on serious crime” like robbery, murder and rape etc (2002, p.128). The visible tendency of police was to react to a crime only after its effects begin to surface. This reactive pattern of crime control was not viable because when a major crime is detected it should be understood that it is the outcome of certain underlying causes. Levinson writes that Wilson and Kelling “saw the serious crime as the result of a lengthier chain of events” (Levinson, 2002, p.128). Major crime arises from disorder and if disorder is not eliminated, serious crime will continue to grow.

Another advantages of the implementation of the broken window theory is that it can lead to the detection of crimes, which can be overlooked otherwise—that is the detection of subway crimes, which means the spotting of a crime in course of investigating another. A banal instance of this kind of incidents is not rare. For example, a good check on traffic rule can lead to the interception in arms smuggling. A similar kind of incident is reported by Levinson, the a New York police commissioner William Bratton fished out several arms smuggler when patrolling simply for the fare evasion in the transit system that was considered to be the biggest broken window in the 1990s (Levinson, 2002, pp.128-129). William Bratton opined that the implementation of aggressive order-maintaining function of the police was responsible for a dramatic decrease in the crime rate during 1990s.

Apart from the police intervention in controlling minor disorders, there is another measure pointed out by Wilson and Kelling, which is true in respect to wide range of civilization and has been accepted in many societies. This is the patrolling by the citizens. It has been often objected by critics that community members can adversely respond intensive intervention by the public watchdog. But the citizens sharing the responsibility can have relatively better chance of acceptance. The authors find out that the use of “‘community watchmen’ is as old as the first settlement of the New World” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.409). These community watchmen consisted of unarmed young men who were in charge of watching that no disorderly activity is done by anyone. They cannot take law in their hands—that is they are not authorized to punish anyone. But one thing can has been recognized both by the authors and the common citizens alike that the mere presence of such watchmen can reduce the likelihood of major crime, if serious crime at all were the result of social disorder. The authors rethink of the feasibility of such watchmen and add that “whatever their effect on crime, citizens find their presence reassuring, and they thus contribute to maintaining a sense of order and civility” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.409). In today’s society the benefit of having community watchmen cannot be denied. One setback of the argument can be that today the communitarian societies are rapidly vanishing due to the urbanization of every nook and corner of the world.

This rejection of the community watchmen scheme can be backed by another alternative that the authors offer. This is the appointment of ‘vigilante’. According to the authors, “their distinctive feature was that their members did take law into their own hands by acting as judge, jury, and often executioner as well as policeman” (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.409). The authors have cited the duty of such a vigilante group, which clearly signals that the functions of such a group involve more than anything the tracking of any suspected movement in the neighborhood.

In order to explain how the unattended broken window can solicit the criminal, the authors argue that the tendency of the people to stay passive during any disreputable activity by strangers can signal tacit support. First, as pointed out by the authors, few member of a society is interested in assuming the responsibility that wearing a badge of a vigilante confers. Secondly, the instances are not rare, when, a crime committed in the daylight is unopposed by a bystander. Witnessing this kind of apathy anyone can jump on the conclusion that there is an alarming dearth of responsible citizens. If the police assume the responsibility of order maintaining on such a pretext, then it is not summarily unacceptable (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.409). But the number of such crimes reported by the eyewitness to the police is relatively higher. Wilson and Kelling reports that when the patrolling police are communicate in this way, this give them a, sense of importance, provides them ‘with the basis for gossip’ and ‘allow them to explain to the authorities what is worrying them’ (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.406). Through this kind of participation they ‘gain a modest but significant sense of having done something about thee problem’ (McLaughlin and Muncie and Hughes: 2003, p.406). For controlling disorderly activity as a supposed prelude to major crime, this type of social reform is essential, where the social psychology is an important factor. If a small group is really the miniature of the larger society then the sense of individual responsibility should be promoted at the micro level. According to Roberts “This important theory (broken windows) takes the position that quality-of-life problems such graffiti, public intoxication, loud radios, urban decay, and a host other petty annoyances of modern life are in themselves criminogenic—when left unattended, the subtly and overtly convey a message that disorder and incivility prevail, that social controls have broken down, and that no one really cares about the neighborhood in which they occur” (Roberts, 2003, p.128). This can be taken an unspoken verdict that since minor offences are acceptable, the larger ones are not much harmful.

Although from this almost euphemistic analysis appears that the broken widows theory flawless and irreproachable in terms of crime control, several allegation have been leveled by criminologists against the broken windows theory. The chief ground of contention is the lack of unanimous definition the so-called disorder. The critics object on the binary opposition of between order and disorder as conceived by the Wilson and Kelling. In communities, which are characterized by some particular interest, the definition of order cannot only be distorted and ununiform but also deliberately reverted. The owners of real estate groups and business leaders can resort to unscrupulous means and design an entirely arbitrary meaning of ‘order’, which is simply aimed to serve their purpose and in this way undermine the interests of others (Chesluk, 2008, p.213).

Another ground of objection is the simplistic presupposition that ‘order’ is an unquestionable state that can lessen the chance of any social complexity. Again in tune with the former allegation, different societies have varied notion of ‘order’. The vision of community as having some values, which are shared by every communities in existence is wrong in itself. And the intervention of police in certain situation can turn out to be extremely intolerant and oppressive. Ian Baird points out that “urban structures and harsh control measures are themselves contributing elements in community dissolution and dissents” (Chesluk, 2008, p.213).

Harcourt (2001) criticizes the broken window theory on the level of collective police oppression. He observes that youth curfews, mass searching, anti-loitering ordnance, order maintenance crackdown, disciplinary practices and shaming penalties are not new to the criminological methods. Therefore what the broken window theory proposes is a kind of addition to the already existing oppression by the police. The “aggressive misdemeanor arrests, and intensive stops and frisks have become not a substitute but supplement—a supplement that feeds into and itself produces dramatic increase in detention, arrests, and criminal records” (Harcourt, 2001, p.6). If, the official record of criminal activity determines the frequency of crime, then it can give a false impression of the rate of criminal activity. Harcourt deplores that “what we are left with today is a system of severe of punishment for major crimes and severe treatment for minor offenders and ordinary citizens, especially minority communities” (Harcourt, 2001, p.6)

Conclusion

Despite the criticisms the theory in the 1990s was accepted with considerable efficacy as the citations above show. For a better social order, the proper monitoring of the social norms is inevitable. There are others who claim that disorder might not be the cause of major crimes. In fact disorder and crime both may find their source in some social policy. Thus it can be argued that in regard to crime control theory, the rationalization of broken windows theory demands reconsiderations. But one thing is sure that the presence of an informal social control mechanism offers an assurance of social security. In the light of this minimal unquestionable good to the society, the broken window theory can well be applied to the troubled communities and perhaps this is the reason why it was in such a vogue in the concluding decades of the twentieth century.