Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson - Essay Example

A Summary and Critique on “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety” The rapid progress of technology in modern society is seen as a giant leap forward in the history of man however, the crime rates are still observed to rise despite the progress in society and culture. This are attributed to various factors such as decreasing involvement of citizens in crime prevention, their over-reliance to law enforcement agencies in preventing crime, the criminalisation of certain actions or behaviour normally deemed harmless individually but could cause disruptions of peace and order when done in throngs, and the simple dissociation of people from their neighbourhoods (Bratton, et al., 1998; Shelden, n.d.). While it seems that for many citizens, increasing the number of patrol officers or the severity of punishments in any kind of crime might be a good solution, it does not exactly tackle the main causes of the proliferation of crime, which is the disconnection of crime and punishment to law and order (Kelling & Coles, 1996). So as to show the citizens that no one is above the law, everyone, even the law enforcement groups or the police also follow guidelines and protocols. This can be seen in certain police operations such as Stop and Search or in Police and Criminal Evidence Act, or PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). The creation of such guidelines in conducting searches in apprehending criminals give assurance to citizens that apart from preventing inappropriate arrests, it is also done to keep the search parties from violating the human rights of the suspects. Using such protocols keep the officers in line with their duties and prevent overstepping boundaries, at the same time keeping the communities safe from criminal activity. They are essentially promulgating both law and orderliness through sticking to set guidelines, effectively dealing with crimes by delivering lawful punishment to offenders in the process. It is presumed that if all parties follow the law, they can prevent crimes from being committed since people are aware of the consequences of breaking the law and that they fully trust the system because even the law enforcers can also be punished if they breach any of their rules of conduct. Thus, the connection between law and order to crime and punishment is that people respect the law they are less likely to commit crime since they are fully aware of the consequences. The reconciliation of law and order with crime and punishment is one of the main themes emphasized in George Kelling and James Wilson’s article, Broken Windows, The police and neighborhood safety (1982). The two aims to present an argument in creating better policies that focus on crime prevention and keeping law and order, instead of regularly fighting crime. By making crime as manageable as possible through zero-tolerance from law enforcers, criminals are less likely to commit due to fears of being apprehended, and having a strong belief that they could easily get caught so they might as well keep away from it. A working theory called “Broken Windows” was used in this aspect to describe how maintaining an appearance of law and order could help prevent criminal acts from being committed. The theme about broken windows was coined after an experiment in two suburbs which shows the differences in how citizens in various neighbourhoods view the extent of their responsibilities and entitlement as well as to how they act upon these in the prevention of crime. It is said that broken windows are one of the most noticeable signs of deterioration of law and order in a city. If the windows are not fixed, it is a sign that the owners of the household either do not care about the house and its promise of safety or the house already lacks inhabitants, which invites vagrant persons such as homeless people, drug addicts, gang members, or some people that just want to claim a space of their own. While in the context of an abandoned house other people breaking in would not normally pose any problems, in the context of the premise that there are actually inhabitants in the home then the people invading the house would be labelled as trespassers and are thus considered to be law breakers. If the broken windows were fixed from the beginning, then there would be a lesser motive for trespassers to enter the house because for them, the house has inhabitants, and this deters them from even entering in the first place. Basically, if the “broken windows were fixed”, that is, by fixing the signs of disorder and misconduct in the community, potential criminals have higher chances of being deterred since this gives them the idea that law enforcement within a community is strict and forces the citizens to comply regularly, otherwise punishments would be implemented (Kelling & Coles, 1996). The authors aim to present the assumption that creating an atmosphere where crime is often dealt with and law breakers are apprehended, would decrease people engaging in criminal acts, and at the same time citizens within communities would feel safer because they perceive that crime rates were low in their areas. An older experiment mentioned in the article relates how the perceptions of the civilians in the safety of their communities and their ties to the locale could dictate how and why crimes were committed. In a city with a higher prevalence of crime and dwellers feel unsafe in where they live there is also a lack of respect to the law and its enforcers (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). The police were unable to completely eradicate crime, and criminals were reported to be braver and brash in law breaking. Such incidents increase along with the perception of disorderliness and lack of police intervention. In due time, more people would come to see their place or community as unsafe. Also, their disengagement to the community decreases their mobility since they would most likely stay in the safety of their homes, not owning any responsibility or ownership in keeping the community safe. Lastly, their decreasing initiatives to report crimes to police due to the latter seemingly unable to help or are too inefficient to provide help at all since many criminal elements are still on the loose, disregarding whether the groups really did engage in criminal acts or not. The above scenarios however, are not seen in other areas where people are relatively more engaged in keeping their place safe, and that they perceive to live in a safe community since they also participate in preventing crime in their own ways. They are also much more aware of their responsibility of both keeping the law as well as doing their duty in preventing crimes from happening, showing both initiative as well as ownership in keeping their neighbourhood safe. In these same places, it was observed that there were lesser signs of disorder and trash, suggesting that apart from people being diligent in preventing crime, there is also strong law enforcement, which is perceived to deter crime. The people are also more likely to call the police since they trust them due to their visibility in the area (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). The people and police in the location mentioned both have insights regarding the importance of law and order with crime prevention and deterrence. While said experiment was not their own, the two authors concluded that the feeling of responsibility and ownership in a neighbourhood affected the people’s perception of crime, how they feel responsible or not in keeping a safe community, and how the police kept the crime rates down through visibility and approachability (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). This prevailing idea that crime rates are better dealt with by focusing on individual responsibility and not due to social issues is one of the cores of right-realism (Walklate, 2007). Initially right-realism identified why crimes are greater in places like urbanised areas and commonly committed by males, but critics see the view on offenders to be biased against certain members of the population. For one thing, in the 1980’s more men were present in the streets as per norms, in turn they are more likely to be targeted by criminals, also mostly men (Walklate, 2007). Also, the places where the experiments were done consisted of communities where minority groups live and patrolling officers were whites, suggesting that officers could exhibit bias against minorities simply due to racist tendencies. However, the two authors counteracted that the three communities all had the same setup of being predominantly-minority groups, and that police officers were mostly Caucasian (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). Also the engagement of community members were more noticeable in the areas with better police visibility, and citizens are more likely to report untoward incidents or give leads, suggesting that despite being minorities they believe to be responsible in keeping crimes from happening. Thus the race of community members were not an issue since both the perpetrators and the community members were the same (Kelling & Wilson, 1982). While the “Broken Window” theory was tested in New York City and effectively decreased crime up to 75%, critics of the theory still press for further tests in validating the theory since it seemed limiting to only certain areas such as cities (Shelden, n.d.). Nevertheless, the theory provides additional insights in creating policies targeting both crime control and prevention alongside giving importance to law and order for its success. Bibliography Bratton, W. J., Griffiths, W., Mallon, R., Orr, J., & Pollard, C., 1998. Zero Tolerance – Policing a free Society. London: Institute of Economic Affairs Health and Welfare Unit. Kelling, G. L. & Coles, C. M., 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York, NY : The Free Press. Kelling, G. L. & Wilson, J. Q., 1982. Broken Windows - The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Magazine, March. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. [Online] Available at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk [Accessed 26 February 2013]. Shelden, R. G., n.d. Assessing "Broken Windows": A Brief Critique. [Online] Available at: http://libra.msra.cn/Publication/5597789/assessing-broken-windows-a-brief-critique [Accessed 15 February 2013]. Walklate, S., 2007. Understanding right realism. In: S. Walklate, ed. Understanding criminology. Berkshire: Open University Press, pp. 38-58. Read More