A critique on Wilson and Kelling, entitled 'Broken Windows' - Essay Example

?Critique of “Broken Windows” Introduction The overall impression of the article “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” was that it adhered well to the theme. The overall theme reflects the title – “Broken windows.” What this means is that if there is a house with one broken window, there soon will be many broken windows on this same house. This is because, if one broken window is allowed to stay broken without being fixed, the conclusion is that people just don’t care about that one broken window. So, they will break the rest of the windows because it is “fun.” The same goes for a car that was put into two different neighborhoods, with no license plate and the hood up. In the Bronx, this car was immediately stripped, then vandalized. In Palo Alto, California, the car was left alone until the researcher took a sledgehammer to the car and then left it there on the street. Once the researcher took the sledgehammer to the car to damage it, others soon followed suit and vandalized it. In the real world, the theme of broken windows was carried to mean that if “little” things are left to fester – vagrants, rowdy kids, etc. – then it is only a matter of time before the whole neighborhood goes to pot, as keeping control of the small things is key to making the neighborhood believe that somebody cares, and, if somebody cares, then the neighborhood is less likely to become a crime-ridden enclave. So, this is the basic theme. Discussion Did the article adhere to the theme? It did adhere to the theme, and expanded upon it. It started out with an example that would support the theme – that officers on foot patrol are beneficial for a neighborhood, not because they actually reduce crime, but because there is a perception by the residents that they are safer with an officer on the streets. This adheres to the theme, because the theme is that there should always be a perception that somebody cares, and if there is that perception, then neighborhoods will be safer and will not disintegrate as quickly as neighborhoods where obviously nobody cares. The example of the foot patrol then expanded the theme to areas that are related to the theme – that neighborhoods have their own customs and informal rules, and that the presence of the police in these neighborhoods is helpful in enforcing these norms. That there is a link between disorderly behavior and the fear of violent crime is another expansion of the theme. The theme is also expanded to the talk about vigilantism, in that this is one way that the citizens of the neighborhoods may take it upon themselves to enforce community norms and order. Throughout the article, there was an expansion of the theme – for instance, there is the wish by some that we should leave people alone if they are involved in a victimless crime, such as prostitution or vagrancy. The article states that this is short-sighted, because this kind of behavior results in less order for the neighborhood, and the neighborhood might disintegrate because of it. There is the example of the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, where the relations between police and residents deteriorated, and, as a result, the crime rates in this project soared. Now, the police relations are improved with the residents, and the police are kicking out gang members. This gives the residents hope that they are not defenseless, and the police are on their side, so they feel more safe and secure. These are all good supporting details regarding the theme of perception of safety, which relates to the broken window – if there is a perception of disorder, then more disorder will follow. If there is a perception of safety, then this emboldens the residents and makes them feel safe and that somebody cares. There was one area of the article that was difficult to follow. This was the part of the article that talks about the individualistic nature of enforcing rights. The paragraph came right after a paragraph that talks about how police can enforce social control mechanisms to minimize fear of public places. Then that paragraph goes on to talk about how law enforcement may not be the answer to this conundrum, because gangs may be intimidating by just standing around and glaring, and speaking rudely to the people of the community, but this is not illegal, and the police cannot really do anything about this. In other words, this paragraph refers to social-control, and how the law enforcement is impotent in this regard sometimes. The next paragraph, however, doesn’t seem to follow this idea, so that paragraph seems incoherent. In fact, the idea itself in this next paragraph seems incoherent and difficult to understand. It talks about the rights of individuals verses the rights of many, and if something happens to one person that doesn’t matter, than it also will not matter if this thing happens to the community. I read this paragraph many times and I still have no clue what the writer is trying to convey here. It is very unclear. At any rate, although the paragraph purports to relate back to the idea that there is a need to strengthen social-control of our neighborhoods, it does not seem to relate back to this idea at all. The paragraph should either be worded in a different way, so that the meaning is more clear, or it should not be in the article at all. And the idea of this paragraph should hew more closely to the previous paragraph because the opening line – “we have difficulty thinking about such matters, not simply because the ethical and legal issues are so complex, but because we have become accustomed to thinking of the law in essentially individualistic terms” implies a linkage to the previous idea. Other than this one paragraph, though, the writing style is very clear and there is a very clear flow from one idea to the next. There are spots of seeming irrelevant details and arguments in some of the paragraphs, but at least these arguments are clear and concise, and do not require being read many times to understand the meaning. One such irrelevant detail is in the same paragraph cited above- not the unclear paragraph, but the one preceding it. The paragraph about social control, and how the police may be ineffectual in enforcing social control mechanisms. In this paragraph, it talks about there could possibly be a racial problem in enforcing social norms – like if the police are white, and the gangs are black, or vice-versa. This would mean that the neighborhood would be apprehensive to see the police taking sides. It goes on to talk about how the police have problems with enforcing social control, because much of what intimidates residents is not illegal. It is very difficult to understand how the concept of not being able to enforce social control has anything to do with race. If the police cannot enforce social control because intimidation isn’t illegal, then this is not racial at all. Injecting racial overtones in a topic that is not racial puts the reader off, and, indeed, this talk about racial overtones making things difficult is a confusing argument and does not support the overall theme of that particular paragraph. There is another problem with a particular thought that was not properly resolved. This is in the paragraph about the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. That paragraph states that there were problems in that housing project between the residents and the police. The residents found the police brutal. The police complained that the residents attacked them. Consequently, the crime rates in this project soared. Now, apparently, the police-citizen relations have improved in this project, and the residents are more willing to work with the police when there are problems. A very pertinent piece of information is left out of this follow-up paragraph, though – what happened to the crime rates? Have they gotten better because the police are more welcomed into the community? The follow-up paragraph does not answer this very important question, and neither do subsequent paragraphs. This is an omission that is difficult to understand why it was there – why is this omitted? This would seem to be the most relevant piece of information, and would bolster the overall theme of the article – that more police involvement and more cooperation would equal safer neighborhoods. There are high profile cases that this article would have done well to mention to illustrate some of its points. For instance, it talks about how citizens may fail to help others who are being attacked or seeking help, and how this happens because people do not feel that they must personally take responsibility for others. Yet, in this paragraph, it does not mention the most famous case regarding this, the murder of Kitty Genovese (Rasenberger, 2006). Genovese was attacked and murdered, while there were residents in the apartments around where she was attacked who did not even call the police (Gansburg, 1964; Dowd, 1984). The “bystander effect”is also named the “Genovese Syndrome” because of this incident (Manning, 2007) – the “bystander effect” being the phenomenon that the probability that any one person will help another in need in inversely proportionate to the number of people who are bystanders (Darley & Latane, 1968; Fischer et al., 2006). In other words, the more people around, the less likely any one of them will help (Hudson & Bruckman, 2004; Latane & Darley, 1968). Yet, in the paragraph that describes this very phenomenon, where the authors talk about how people avoid responsibility when there are others standing about, the authors not only do not describe the phenomenon clearly – the authors state that the people do not help because they do not feel that they have the responsibility to help, which only gets at part of the theory – but the article does not mention Kitty Genovese in this paragraph. Conclusion This article was well-written for the most part, and has a good flow, also for the most part. There are opportunities missed – such as using the case of Kitty Genovese to illustrate why cops are needed on the beat, as people are not likely to take action if there is an emergency and there are others around. There are a few paragraphs which are difficult to understand, and there are some details that don’t seem relevant. Overall, however, the idea of the article is sound – that many neighborhoods do not necessarily have high crime, but there are minor things that occur that might lead to higher crime, and that these are the neighborhoods that should be patrolled, so that these neighborhoods do not slide into being high crime. Such relatively minor incidents as vagrancy, loudness, rudeness, disorderly conduct, etc., are the harbingers of an area that is sliding downhill, and these incidents will lead to worse incidents if not nipped in the bud – because, like the broken window, it seems that, in these neighborhoods, nobody cares. This article also kind of changed my mind about some things – I have always wondered why prostitution should be illegal, because nobody is getting hurt in this crime. This article illustrates why – prostitution is one of those early harbingers that signal a neighborhood in decline, and, even though this crime is victimless, as are loitering and panhandling, it needs to be stopped, because prostitution, like loitering an panhandling, are actions that show that people in the neighborhood have stopped caring. And, when people stop caring, it will not be long until that neighborhood has crime problems. This article shows how to nip this in the bud, so it is a very valuable article. Bibliography Darley, J. & Latane, B. (1968) “Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 8, pp. 377-383. Dowd, M. (1984) “20 years after the murder of Kitty Genovese, the question remains: Why?” New York Times, 12 March. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F. & Frey, D. (2006) “The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 36, pp. 267-278. Gansberg, M. (1964) “Thirty-eight who saw murder didn’t call the police,” New York Times, 27 March. Hudson, J. & Bruckman, A. (2004) “The bystander effect: A lens for understanding patterns of participation,” Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 1650195. Kelling, G. & Wilson, J. (1982) “Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety,” TheAtlantic.com. Latane, B. & Darley, J. (1968) “Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 10, pp. 308-324. Manning, R., Levine, M.& Collins, A. (2007) “The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses,” American Psychologist, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 555-562. Rasenberger, J. (2006) “Nightmare on Austin Street,” American Heritage. October. Read More