Broken Windows Theory - Research Paper Example

Crime prevention As the cost of crime rises for both individuals and the community, crime prevention is becoming a major concern. As such, resources are spent on methods meant to apprehend and punish criminals as well as reducing the likelihood that offences will be committed in future. In spite of these efforts, crime prevention still poses as a formidable challenge for the community (Cote, 2002). This is due to the range and complexity of the reasons why people commit crimes. As such, community based programs to prevent crimes have gained popularity. They encourage communities to get involved in crime prevention. There are several crime prevention strategies and programs that use specific approaches to recognize, anticipate, appraise and address crimes or factors that contribute to crime. Crime prevention could be targeted at different levels starting with the individual, family as well as the community (Briggs, 2013). At individual level, crime prevention aims at avoidance of crime and the factors constituting to crime. This means preventing an individual from ever committing a crime. The term crime prevention is used to refer to programs designed in an effort to prevent individuals from committing a subsequent crime. The crime prevention strategies focused on the community target changes in the infrastructure, culture or the physical nature to prevent or reduce crime. Community based crime prevention programs include: Community policing which entails promoting and supporting strategies addressing crime related issues through police and community partnerships. Neighbourhood watch- which is a community mobilisation strategy where citizens organize groups to prevent and report neighbourhood crime and disorder. Comprehensive programs which encourage involvement of local and state government, the private sector as well as the community to respond to violent crimes, drug abuse and improve the standards of living in the community by incorporating multiple approaches. Finally the Ad hoc law enforcement activities that are related to prevention of crime. Broken windows theory This is a crime prevention theory that was developed by George Kelling and James Wilson that seems to suggest that preventing minor crimes such as vandalism and public disorderliness is the gateway to preventing crimes that are considered major and life threatening (Neubauer, 2013). As such, if the police were to crack down on minor offenders involved in minor crimes, it would lead to less serious crimes on the streets. The proponents of this theory assert that if left unchecked, street corners will gradually degenerate in to crime infested areas where bullies would take over taking alcohol and drugs openly intimidating citizens and making excessive noises. The broken window is a metaphorical broken window in a building which they argue if left unattended will attract more vandalism in the building. Therefore, broken windows should be fixed as it symbolizes unwillingness of the people to act up on an issue. The criminals, it is argued , reason in a manner that if the police are unable to keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying the passersby, then the police are even less likely to identify a potential mugger or intervene if the mugging occurs. In an environment where minor crimes go unchallenged, it becomes a breeding ground for more serious crimes and eventually violence. This theory has been put in place in New York City where research show that crimes significantly went down due to police activities of arresting minor offenders. Research shows that about thirty percent of arrests made in New York for misdemeanour are due to assault and larceny, crimes that would not be considered minor. Twelve percent are for subway theft including fare jumping and metro card frauds. The other sixteen percent are for traffic offences. These account for over sixty percent of arrests made in New York City alone (St Jean, 2007). The critics of broken windows theory fail to see that only less than ten percent of misdemeanour arrests are sentenced to jail with only a few for broken windows offences. This theory is pivotal to lowering crime rates in American neighbourhoods. When police prevent minor crimes such as lewdness and disorderly behaviour in public, the citizens will ultimately feel safer and that their security is being given priority. The theory in practice will also enhance community policing. The citizens form the impression that the police are friendly and not to be feared and as such, they will contribute to maintaining order themselves with the knowledge that the police are always around to offer them reinforcement. Management of public places in an effort of minimizing disorderly behaviour contributes to lesser crime opportunities daily. Order is believed to breed more order while disorder encourages crime (Briggs, 2013). Therefore, when the minor offenders such as bullies and shooters are driven off the streets, there is reduced risk of being killed or terrorized on the streets. This in turn triggers the law abiding citizens to re-emerge and enforce the kind of informal social control synonymous with the prosperous neighbourhoods. In transforming these public places, people, especially teenagers who are more prone to disorderly behaviour develop restraint and therefore less likely to end up in jail. Criticism has been levelled against this theory with people arguing that this theory encourages the police to use excessive force and misuse their power when arresting criminals. They also argue that the methods that are used to come to a decision to arrest the criminals could be anything but legal. Critics have also argued that this program is seen to target poor neighbourhoods which have a high population of black Americans and the Hispanic. They argue that broken windows theory is a racist theory. This is because these two races have accounted for more than half of the arrests made using this program. The critics have also dismissed this theory in relation to fighting and lowering crime levels in New York as just anecdotal, terming it as correlation without causation (Briggs, 2013). Worth noting also is the fact that there exists no evidence to show that arresting minor offenders ultimately means lesser felons. This theory is seen as leading to more incarceration. Police arrest people at the slightest of provocation even for offences that may not warrant arrests. As such, police time is wasted which would have otherwise been used for arresting real criminals who commit crimes referred to as life threatening such as killings and robbery with violence or assault. Broken windows may summon more people to police stations but it is this early intervention and swift action that has kept these people away from major crimes on the streets. Finally, critics argue that it is a way of imposing rigid and moralistic standards of behaviour on diverse population. This is not the case as it is a discretionary undertaking that involves serious training and supervision with proper dialogue with the community for better law maintenance. This theory should be embraced by everyone in the community as it is among the best crime prevention program for the well being of the community. The theory of crime prevention through environmental design This theory is based on the simple idea that crime is as a result of the opportunities presented by physical environment. As such it is possible to alter the physical environment to lessen the possibility of crimes occurring. The idea that crime is influenced partly by the physical environment has raised a lot of controversies among criminologists. The controversy stems from misunderstandings about causes. Some of the main proponents of this theory include Ray Jeffery who asserts that sociologists have considerably overstated the social causes of crime which include relative deprivation and sub cultural influences and have abandoned biological and environmental determinants. He further says that prevention of crime should be based on factors relating to biology of the crime and also reducing the environmental opportunities for crime (Lilly et al, 2011). The second approach is defensible space theory under environmental design which was developed by Oscar Newman an architect. He blamed high rates of crime on public housing projects on their lay-out and design. Newman criticises the huge inhuman scale of the developments and the stark design that made these buildings seem like no one cared about them. The location of such buildings in high crime infested neighbourhoods and the large buildings made it difficult for the residents to know who the neighbours were and who the intruders were. These factors put together attract criminal predators who can commit their crimes without fear of arrest. Newman and other concerned architects therefore put forward a variety of detailed designs with suggestions in an effort to change these conditions and make housing safer. This was an attempt to reduce crime in such neighbourhoods and make the citizens have the sense that somebody cares about their well being (Lilly et al, 2011). Newman intentions were to encourage natural territorial behaviour on the part of the residents. This would be done by enabling the residents give surveillance to the public areas around their individual homes. Criminologists and social scientists criticised this labelling it environmental determinism. He was also accused of making simplistic extrapolations to human behaviour from the territorial behaviour associated with animals. However, Newman continues to have considerable influence on the design of public housing in many parts of the world. The abandonment of many tower block buildings as public houses is due to Newman’s arguments about criminogenic potential. Under crime prevention related to environmental design also is situational crime prevention which was developed by the government of Britain criminology research department in the mid 1970’s. This approach is not based on predatory offenses of burglary or robbery but a general approach to minimise the opportunities for any kind of crime that may occur in any kind of setting such as obscene phone calls, domestic violence and conventional predatory offenses. A lot of research into the relationship between crime and the environment has been conducted under the realms of situational crime prevention. These are crime prevention strategies arising from routines of everyday life. These strategies include hardening potential targets, better surveillance of areas likely to attract crime and diverting potential offenders from settings where crimes may occur (Cote, 2002). This approach is in line with community based crime prevention programs. This approach to crime prevention has gained much acceptance over the years even though it had received a lot of opposition from the criminologists. This is because more evidence about the important role of opportunity in crime has accumulated and also because more criminology theories have been developed that give a much greater role to environmental determinants of crime. A lot of case studies have also been published that showcase the relationship between crime reduction and the environment. Finally, less displacement of crime, it has been found out, is the cause of environmental changes than it has been portrayed by the critics. Other theories that explain why criminals chose to behave the way they do include: Rational choice theory This is the belief that individuals chose to commit a crime and look at the opportunities before them, evaluate the benefit and the possible ramifications and then decide whether to commit a crime or not. The cost benefit analysis mainly focuses on the notion that we all have a choice to proceed with our actions (Siegel, 2013). However due to the punishment associated with that action, we are reluctant to do it. Classical theory Just like the choice theory, it asserts that people think before they proceed to commit criminal acts. When one commits a crime, it is because the person decides it is in their best interest to commit the crime. The person commits a crime out of their own will being well informed of the punishment attached to it. The main scholar behind this theory was John Locke (Siegel, 2013). He suggested that all people are equal and there exists an unwritten but voluntary contract between the citizens and the state which gives power to those in government and defines a framework of mutual rights and roles. Conflict theory This holds that crime is as a result of conflicts in the society among the different social classes and that the law arises from necessity due to conflict rather than from general consensus. The main causes of crime are the economic and social forces operating in a society (Briggs, 2013). Critical theory This theory posits that a small minority and the elite of the society decide on laws and the definition of a crime. Criminals disagree with the laws that were created to keep them in control. This theory observes crime as a product of oppression by the works and the less advantaged in the society. These may include women, ethnic minorities and the poor. These theories are used to determine why crimes occur and as such, proper remedies and prevention measures are formed to curb criminal activities in the society (Siegel, 2013) . Conclusion Each theory contains its own explanations of why crimes occur. Some may however overlap but the ultimate goal is to lessen the occurrence of crimes. These theories are pivotal to explaining and understanding why people commit crimes and as such, come up with the best way to prevent the menace. Community based crime prevention programs have proven useful over the years and more people have gradually joined in the trend St John, 2007). They are successful since people become more vigilante, always finding out who is living next door as well as ratting out people who are seen to have ulterior motives in the neighbourhood. This way, people communities have been able to prevent not only minor offences but also bigger crimes such as terrorism in their neighbourhoods. As such, the government should focus more on community based programs for crime prevention and encourage people to be involved in these programs as they are for their own well being. Reference list Briggs, S. (2013). Criminology for dummies. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons. Neubauer, D. W. (2011). Americas courts and the criminal justice system. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Top of Form St, Jean. P. K. B. (2007). Pockets of crime: Broken windows, collective efficacy, and the criminal point of view. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Siegel, L. J. (2013). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth Cote, S. (2002). Criminological theories: Bridging the past to the future. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Read More