The Broken Windows Metaphor - Term Paper Example

The Broken Window’s Metaphor The argument behind the metaphor is that: just as a broken window left untended is a sign that nobody cares and invitesmore broken windows, so disorderly behavior left untended is assign that nobody cares and leads to fear of crime, more serious crime and, ultimately, urban decay. Broken windows policing refers to a police emphasis on disorderly behavior and minor offenses like prostitution, public urination, and aggressive panhandling. Broken down, the broken windows metaphor means that a minor happening like a broken window can lead to increased damage if not taken care of, to the presumed consequences of uncivil and petty criminal behaviors: fear, serious crime, and urban decay (Weisburd and Braga, 2006). The ideas in the broken windows have policy implications and have come to be practiced: that is, the broken windows metaphor is expressed not just in words, but in day-t0-day action by agencies; most often by the public police, but by other sectors as well. The broken window’s theory of disorder and crime, and its order maintenance prescriptions, has played a significant role in justifying the new public space ordinance. For example, in the young versus the New York City, a case concerning panhandling prohibition in New York City streets, a New York federal court heard testimony from George Kelling, one of authors of broken windows, and cited that study approvingly in upholding the prohibition. The broken window is a modified version of the future criminality justification for law. Behaviors such as loafing, begging, sitting and panhandling breeds crime (Kelling and Coles, 1997). Kelling and Coles states that disorderly behavior, unregulated and unchecked signals to citizens that the area is unsafe. Responding prudently, and fearfully, citizens will stay off the streets, avoid certain areas, and curtail their normal activities and associations. These prudent and fearful citizens, in withdrawing from public space, also withdraw from roles of mutual support, thereby relinquishing the social controls they formerly helped to maintain. This results in increasing vulnerability to an influx of more disorderly behavior and serious crime (Kelling and Coles, 1997). On the theory of crime, Wilson seem to suggest that disorderly behavior such as public drinking, loitering by groups of youths, and panhandling sends two distinct signals to citizens and to the criminals. The message send to the citizens is to stay away and be a\afraid while the message sent to the criminals is to come and capitalize on the absence of informal and social control mechanisms. Disorderly behavior unchecked signals to citizens that the area is unsafe while muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions. If the neighborhood cannot keep a bothersome panhandler from annoying passersby, the thief may reason, it is less likely to call the police to identify a potential mugger. In the broken windows theory, panhandlers do not become criminals, but they are a nuisance. They frighten upstanding citizens, create a climate of fear and intimidation that is receptive to crime, and send signals to criminals that this climate exists: serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked (McLaughlin and Muncie, Hughes, 2003). In addition, the broken windows discourse succeeds in driving the world into two groups: upstanding but fearful citizens who prudently avoid disordered public spaces, and homeless panhandlers who are the personification of broken windows. Although Kelling and Coles claim to have avoided the criminalization status via a focus on behavior, their text of behavior is in need of a subtext of identity. If the key link between disorder and crime is citizen’s fear of disorder, one might ask whether their fear of panhandlers is justified. Does citizen fear of some kinds of disorder reflect prudence and citizen fear of other forms reflect justice? Such questions cannot be asked within the broken windows theory, because citizen fear of disorder turns out to be its own justification. Kelling and Wilson claim that it is neither an unreasonable nor extreme reaction, since disorder does indeed precede or accompany serious crime and urban decay. But disorder, they argue, leads to crime because citizens fear it and withdraw from public spaces. Thus they create an undifferentiated category of disorder and, in a circular argument, close off questions about the reasonableness of citizen fear (McLaughlin and Muncie, Hughes, 2003). That citizen fear of homeless persons and panhandlers is central in the creation of public space restrictions can be seen in the lead up to the passage of the Baltimore City Council’s aggressive ordinance: a security task force made up of members of the downtown partnership which administers a special taxing district and provides supplementary security as part of the blurring of private/ public boundaries in urban spaces, city officials, police officers, and community representatives issued a report on people causing anxiety and concluded that two discrete populations of people cause much of the public anxiety downtown: aggressive beggars or panhandlers who intimidate and harass other individuals, and the hardcore homeless, whose situations are exacerbated by arrange of economic, physical, or social problems (Harcourt, 2001). Even if we grant Kelling and Wilson’s claim that citizens fear of panhandlers and homeless persons leads to crime because fearful citizens withdraw from public spaces and create criminal conditions, effective responses are not limited to the prohibition of panhandling and public sleeping. Citizens might instead break out the circularity of the argument, questioning whether a more appropriate response is for domiciled citizens to refuse sanctuary in their fear, and to remain engaged in public spaces with social disorder. Critics rightly point out that broken windows’ policies are normally complex, but until they begin to develop a more substantive understanding of that which they criticize, the claims that they make that order maintenance policies are objectionable remain mere assertions founded on doubtful suspicions, inauthentic media accounts, and politically instigated assumptions. Order maintenance, as interpreted by some police officers, is normally questionable, but for critics to condemn the practice without sufficient knowledge of it or on the basis of media representations are professionally irresponsible. Because there are better indicators of crime and crime reduction, for example, neighborhood stability, focus should be on policy improvements in the community than on policies derived from broken windows. It should be noted that crime control efforts emerging from problem solving of crime, prevention, and community crime prevention show possibility at reducing crime and restoring order in communities. It should not be suggested that order maintenance policing should be implemented instead of these efforts. Many of the many better statistical predictors of crime essentially offer little in the way of policy options. People should not argue, against the desire to improve neighborhood policing, but notions such as this are not god in both concept and practice. Easing unemployment, poverty, and racial tensions are highly desirable goals to be sure, but the method by which these goals are to be attained are far from certain. The government should particularly embark on poverty reduction, as it forms the basis of most crimes. When there are low levels of poverty in the country, many citizens are able to be satisfied with their living conditions. Poverty reduction should be done through access to education and employment opportunities. However, poverty reduction measures should not be seen as good options to community policing initiatives put forward by the broken windows theory. Urban dwellers should overcome a desire for complete control and certainty and to become receptive to disorder, uncertainty, and difference. Urban planning and policy should be oriented toward fostering unplanned encounters between strangers to help them overcome their fears of disorder and difference. Such unplanned encounters would permit the experience of difference in a way that prevents those differences from being converted into more harmful ones. Wilson and Kelling’s broken windows theory, which in some circles has become a classic foundational document for community policing, referred to physical signs than an areas uncared for. Abandoned buildings and automobiles, the accumulation of trash and liter, broken windows and lights, and graffiti or profanity all invite criminal behavior. It is not an over assumption to state that the notions of social disorganization in criminology never have been, and probably never will be, fully exhausted because they interfere with community members’ abilities to work together (Deaver, 2009). The broken window theory specifies that several variables such as residential instability, ethnic diversity, family disruption, economic status, population size or density, and proximity to urban areas; impact a community’s ability to establish and maintain strong systems related to social relationships. Based on research in urban settings, the authors of broken window expected that rates of juvenile violence in rural communities would increase as rates of residential instability increased (Stevens and Yach, 1995). Wilson and Kelling argued that reform era policing strategies focused on violent crime to the detriment of the vital police role of promoting the quality of life in neighborhoods. As a result, many communities, particularly in large cities, had fallen into a state of disorder with two important consequences. First, these neighborhoods with their broken windows, dilapidated buildings, and lawless behavior by residents sent out signals that criminal activity is tolerated. Second, this disorder spreads fear among law abiding citizens, dissuading them from leaving their homes or attempting to improve their surroundings (Deaver, 2009). In broken windows, Wilson and Kelling insisted that, to reduce fear and crime in high risk neighborhoods, police had to rely on the cooperation of citizens. Community policing can be defined as an approach that promotes community police partnerships, proactive problem solving, community engagement to address issues such as fear of crime and the cause of such fear in a particular area. During the reform era, police were more detached from the community. They did their jobs to the best of their ability but were more concerned with making arrests or speedily answering calls for service than learning about the problems or concerns of the citizenry. In their effort to eliminate police corruption, administrators put more emphasis on segregating the police from the public than cooperatively working with citizens to resolve community problems. Under community policing, patrol officers have more freedom to improvise. They are expected to develop personal relationships with residents and to encourage those residents to become involved in making the community a safer place (Rene, 2001). It is a general belief that the community is at the heart of the effective policing according to the broken windows theory. A close and positive relationship between the police and the society it services is the essential precondition to effective crime reduction. If the police neglect the consultation and corporation with the local communities, unrest is certain and riot becomes probable. Community participation in policing is therefore not a luxury. There is a relationship between good community relations and the public peace. Consultation and accountability underpin effective operational policing. Undervaluing and undermining the importance of community policing has serious consequences, involving alienation, remoteness and impoverished standards of policing (Rene, 2001). Community safety is a human right. In a democracy, people have the right to live their lives without being attacked or abused or having their property stolen. The police should play a vital role in upholding this right for members of the society. Government has a responsibility to create the framework in which peaceful co-existence is possible. The police have extensive powers and responsibilities (Williams, 1998). In particular, they enjoy enormous discretionary powers. At the point of arrest and detention of an individual is potentially vulnerable and isolated from the rest of society, often not within view of a third party. Unless the police are ethical, and exemplify the highest standards of personal conduct, they may resort to force to obtain the information they need (Wilcox and Cullen, 2010). For community policing to be successful, police officers must be open to new ideas and experiences and be willing to take risks. Unlike the traditional model of policing, in which the police rarely react to a crime or social problem, the community policing model requires police to be proactive, searching for crime and disorder problems to solve (Rahtz, 2001). Community policing officers serve their communities and neighborhoods not only by solving crime and social disorder problems but by preventing them before they occur. This requires understanding what communities and neighborhoods are and how they work (Wilcox and Cullen, 2010). The police in general, and particularly community policing officers, must have an understanding and knowledge of multiculturalism in order to be respectful and appreciative of various cultures within the community and neighborhood where they work. Police departments and officers need to grasp what comprises a community and neighborhood. Once the understanding of these concepts has been established, then, and only then, can a successful partnership between the police and community take place? Many of the communities and neighborhoods are multicultural, and, by attempting to understand multiculturalism, the police are showing the members of communities and neighborhoods that they are reaching out to establish a partnership (Wilcox and Cullen, 2010). When the police cannot check rowdy behavior, community controls break down: residents no longer take care of their homes, watch out and correct another’s children. When the community together with the police abandon property, windows are broken and weeds and debris are allowed to grow, creating an environment of not caring. When drunks, panhandlers, prostitutes, drug addicts, unruly teenagers, loiterers, and the mentally ill throng the streets, frightened residents no longer go out much, and their control over the public realm is lost. When gangs spray-paint street signs and the streets departments take three months to remove the graffiti, the impression is given that the gang has more power than the city, the police, or the residents (Dolling and Feltes, 1993). When teenagers are allowed to block city streets and be rowdy, the disorderly behavior will escalate to even more serious criminal behavior. Conversely, police enforcement of public order can help to revitalize a neighborhood and ultimately reduce crime. As officers patrol and enforce informal rules that are familiar to all residents, for example, telling teenagers to keep the noise down, they restore public order and provide a sense of security to residents, encouraging residents’ higher presence and involvement in their neighborhoods (Hale, 1987). Wilson and Kelling argued that we must return to our long abandoned view that the police ought to protect communities as well as individuals. Just as physicians now recognize the importance of fostering health rather than simply treating illness, so the police, And the rest of the community, ought to recognize the importance of maintaining intact communities without broken windows (Hale, 1987). Neighborhood crime for the most part has been found to be committed by offenders who reside near their victims. This makes it primarily a local problem that must be locally solved. Wilson and Kelling provided several examples of how the police and neighborhoods together can handle disorderly behavior constructively. For instance, when local merchants in a New York City neighborhood complained to the police about homeless persons who created a mess on the streets and whose presence frightened away customers, the officer who responded did not roust the vagrants but instead suggested that the merchants hire them to clean the streets in front of their stores every morning (Friedmann, 1992). The merchants complied, and today the streets are attractive to customers as they go shopping in the stores. When people in a Los Angeles neighborhood complained about graffiti on walls and gang symbols on stop signs, officers assigned to the community mobilization project in the Wilshire station did more than just try to catch the gang youths who were wielding spray cans. They also organized boy scouts and groups to paint over the graffiti as soon after they were put up. Clearly, the concept of broken windows fits well into problem solving approaches and into the overall philosophy of community policing. The theory of broken windows has been incorporated into the community policing policy of many police departments (Murray and Murray, 2002). Conclusion Police community relations must be considered in all police operations, including departmental policy, supervision, personnel procedures, records and communications, the acceptance of complaints against departmental members, and planning research. Ideally, police community relations emphasize listening to people rather than telling them what to do and taking seriously the concerns and input of community members (Paynich and Hill, 2009). The goal of community policing is to overcome the isolation that police had experienced under the traditional model of policing. Basically, community policing assigns responsibility to the community. In some cities, community teams include generalists and specialists and provide all police services to an area, including patrol, traffic, and investigations, under one supervisor (Fielding, 1995). Community policing requires the police to be responsive to the neighborhoods where they are assigned and to develop rapport and cooperate with the community. Many of the strategies of team policing have been incorporated into policing. In addition, policing require organizational change and a shift away from the traditional authoritarian management style (Paalmiotto, 2000). Another set of innovations concerns preventive patrol, or the regular patrolling of an area, either in cars or on foot. Generally, police departments assign several of their officers to patrol; thus the patrol unit has been called the backbone of the police department. When patrol officers are not responding to a call or performing an administrative task, they are expected to engage in preventive patrol (Brogde and Nijhar, 2005). Criminal law and criminal justice theories shift the focus of explanations based on lawbreakers and lawbreaking to the lawmakers and law enforcers. Two contrasting views have dominated thinking about how behavior comes to be defined as criminal and how crime once defined is controlled (Schaffer, 1999). The consensus view takes consensus as the normal state of society; that consensus defines crimes as conduct that offends the collective conscience. Society has created crime to establish h moral boundaries that when violated threaten the existence of the society. The conflict view assumes that conflict is the normal state of the society. The most powerful groups get to define what’s criminal and how to enforce criminal laws to further their own interests (Wilson, 2006). References Brogde, M and Nijhar, P (2005). Community policing: national and international models and approaches. London, Willan Publishing. Pp 98-102. Deaver, J (2009). The broken window: Alinkoln Rhyme novel. Simon & Schuster. Pp 312-315. Dolling, D and Feltes, T (1993). Community policing; comparative aspects of community oriented police work. Felix Verlag. Pp 115-117. Fielding, N (1995). Community policing. London, oxford University Press. Pp 25-39. Friedmann, R (1992). Community policing: comparative perspectives and prospects. Pelgrave Macmillan. Pp 110-119. Hale, J (1987). The broken window: beckett’s dramatic perspective. Purdue University Press. Pp 65-70. Harcourt, E (2001). Illusion of order: the false promise of broken windows policing. Havard University press. Pp 23-28. Kelling L and Coles, M (1997). Fixing broken windows: restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. Simon & Schuster. Pp 112-115. McLaughlin,E. Muncie, J. Hughes,G. (2003). Criminological Perspectives: essential readings.London. Sage Murray, J and Murray, K (2002). Broken windows graffiti NYC. New York, Gingko Press. Pp 102-108. Paalmiotto M (2000). Community policing strategy for the 21st century. New Tork, Jones & Bartlett Learning. Pp 33-46. Paynich R and Hill, B (2009). Fundamentals of crime mapping. New York, John & Bartlett Learning. Pp 56-65. Rahtz, H (2001). Community policing: a handbook for beat cops and supervisor. Criminal Justice Press. Pp 45-50. Rene, K (2001). An analysis of the broken windows theory. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Pp 57-63. Schaffer, B (1999). Community policing. Taylor & Francis. Pp 68-75. Stevens, P and Yach, D (1995). Community policing in action: a practitioner’s guide. Juta and Company Ltd. Pp 35-40. Weisburd, D and Braga, A (2006). Police innovation: contrasting perspectives. Cambridge University Press. Pp 78- 85. Wilcox, P and Cullen, T (2010). Encyclopedia of criminological theory. London, SAGE. Pp 858-865. Williams, B (1998). Citizen paerspectives on Community Policing: acase study in Athens, Georgia. SNY Press. P 110-115. Wilson, J (2006). Community policing in America. New York, Routledge. Pp 80—90. Read More