Thursday, December 12, 2019

Broken Window Theory free essay sample

When comparing the two most common methods of contemporary police department strategies, community policing and the broken windows theory, it is easier to show their differences rather than their similarities. The most obvious difference being that broken windows deals with conditions not people, whereas community policing depends strongly on the citizens to be an effective tool. The broken windows theory states that it is easier to solve a small problem before it becomes a big problem. Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (George L. Kelling). The second part of the theory is that by repairing the broken window, further petty crime will be deterred thus as a result a major crime will be prevented. The claim that this theory actually prevents major crimes is what has been criticized the most harshly. University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt is among those and states â€Å"There’s no good evidence that disorder causes crime [or] that broken windows policing reduces serious crime in a neighborhood† (Boston Globe 2/19/06). Harcourt feels it was the crack epidemic of the 80’s and 90’s that influenced the rise and fall of crime rates. Because of the tremendous amount of money being made in the beginning of the crack surge, it was worth the fight for turf resulting in higher crime, but as it became more available dealers thought twice about the risk for less profit. Other criticisms of the theory involve everything from the legalization of abortion in the 70’s (the feeling being with less unwanted males in society there were fewer potential criminals in the 80’s and 90’s) to simply stating â€Å"Newton’s Law of Crime: what goes up must come down† (Boston Globe 2/19/06). Community policing on the other hand, focuses on crime and social disorder by implementing police services that include traditional law enforcement, mixed with community engagement, problem solving, and partnerships within the community. Community policing requires police and citizens to join together as partners in the course of recognizing, reporting, and effectively solving these issues. Along with community policing is the concept of community court, which can take on several forms but all strive to create relationships between the justice system and the citizens, merchants, schools, and church groups within that community. These are ways to address local problems on a smaller scale. Started in New York City with ne such court in 1993, there are now over 30 in operation across the country. Deputy Inspector Michael Kemper is the commanding officer of the NYPD’s 76th precinct which was recently ranked #1 in crime reduction over the last two years. The community in which the 76th is housed is one of three precincts served by the Red Hook Community Justice Center, a so called â€Å"community court†. According to him, the community court and better community policing are the main reasons for the reductio n of crime. â€Å"I break it down into three factors. First and foremost, the police officers and the supervisors assigned to this precinct are working harder and smarter than ever before. Technological advances have led to computerized systems being placed in precincts throughout the city, and now police officers can track crimes being committed almost immediately. As a result of this, resources can be moved and shifted in order to address any crime trends observed. The precinct is also assisted by outside units such as Patrol Borough Brooklyn South, the Narcotics Bureau, and the Vice Enforcement Unit. Second, I believe in building a good solid working relationship with community members, the people who reside or work here. It’s very important that the community we serve trusts us and that we work together as a team. And we often rely on community members to supply us with information and point us in the right directions to improve their communities, whether their issues are more serious criminal problems or â€Å"quality-of-life† complaints. Third, I believe that the Red Hook Community Justice Center has contributed significantly to our success. The relationship we have with them is instrumental and I look forward to working with them in the future† (courtinnovation. com). Similarities are seen in that both methods include the citizens and a desire to clean up that community. If a petty crime, to be addressed by a broken windows type police department, is reported by a community member, then it takes on a community policing feel when the officers respond and it is to the satisfaction of the citizens. They are both pro-active and crime prevention oriented methods, it’s just one hears more of a voice from the people they are protecting. It makes sense that the two methods are frequently conflated within a department. As stated above both act as a vehicle to clean up the streets of a community. Broken windows does so before the community is affected, community policing takes place as the community is already being affected. It would seem appropriate that the wo mesh and all concerns involving the community are addressed. The major factors in maintaining these safe communities are obviously the police, the citizens, and the politicians. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a huge proponent of the broken windows theory and changed the entire landscape of Manhattan by ridding the streets of homeless and â€Å"squeegee men† with the understanding that by eliminating these individuals it eliminates petty crime, therefore deterring major crime. Another one of Mayor Giuliani’s initiatives was the implementation of CompStat , a strategic control system designed for the collection and feedback of information on crime and related quality of life issues. This program is easily defined as a means to collect, analyze, and map crime data and other essential police performance measures on a regular basis, and hold police managers accountable for their performance as measured by these data (The CompStat Process, 2003). In this 2003 interview with the Academy of Achievement in Washington D. C. Giuliani explains how these programs effectively reduced crime in New York City: â€Å"The drastic cut in crime in New York City which continued after crime started going up in other cities has to do with two principal things and then a lot of other things. One is the Broken Windows theory. Youve got to pay attention to everything, and you cant give criminals a sense of immunity. The second is the COMSTAT program, the computer program that measures crime every single day in every single part of the city, pin-maps it, plots it, and gives you real hard data on which you can make decisions about your law enforcement strategies. So every day, you can look at where crime is going up, where crime is going down, and assign your police not based on some kind of a hunch or guess, but based on the fact that crime is going up in this part of the city, and this is where we have to put our police officers, and these are the kinds of police officers that we need to do it, because you need different kinds of police officers based on different kinds of crimes. In one part of the city, you can have auto theft going up. You need a certain kind of policing and a certain kind of police officer to reduce that. In another part of the city, you could have thefts of office buildings. You need a different kind of police officer, you need a different kind of policing, and you need the help of the security people in the buildings. But by having these accurate statistics and keeping after them very intensely, you get to see these trends right away, and then you can take action to stop it before it gets out of control. † However, it remains to be seen if these improvements will have lasting affect. In her 6/29/08 article in the New York Post, Julia Vitullo-Martin claims NYC is on a trend that appears to be reverting back to the crime ridden era of the early 1980’s. Some of her evidence gathered shows there has been an 81. % increase of complaints regarding graffiti from 2006 to 2007. In that same period graffiti related arrests spiked 28%. There have been double digit increases in the homeless count this year alone. Violent crimes and murders are on the rise as well with a murder rate up 8% from this time last year, a 6. 2% increase in rapes, and a 4. 4% increase in robberies. However, overall crime is down 3% with declines in assault, grand larceny, burglary and other categories. Another major factor in these percentage increases is the fact that the number of NYPD officers is down to the lowest amount since 1992. The current number (as of May) of 35,700 officers is down from 40,800 in just 2001. In 1991 there were a miniscule 31,000 police officers on the streets. Jeremy Travis, the president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice says â€Å"You can’t cut the police force by 5,000 officers and expect to have the same level of public safety as you had before. We came to recognize that as a city in 1990, and we’ve been the beneficiaries ever since† (NY Post 6/29/08). The appearance of lawlessness, graffiti, homeless, abandoned vehicles and buildings, etc, is also something the community must want to have eradicated for any policing to be effective. If no one that lives there cares then why would the police? Police culture varies from city to city and state to state, but the common theme is to protect and serve. When a community reaches out and wants to take a stand against criminal behavior, the police are more inclined to make every effort and resource available to do so. Maybe it’s actually a point for broken windows that the neighborhoods that are taken care of tend to be policed better than the neighborhoods where it appears too late. As far as why a police officer would gravitate towards broken windows is more a testament to the times than anything else. There are less, if any at all, real communities left, therefore, the community policeman, or beat cop, is long gone. It wasn’t long ago that neighborhoods were clearly defined, generally by class but specifically by ethnicity. The officers patrolling these areas knew the idiosyncrasies within the culturally diverse communities. An officer could become specialized in how to deal with people in the community even if they are from completely different backgrounds, religions, etc. There was a connection in these neighborhoods, not only with the police and the public, but the neighbors themselves. People knew each other, people looked out for one another, people would be invested in other’s well being if not only because they were friends, but for the greater good of the community. A good point was made in class where we don’t even know our neighbors anymore, how can we expect a police officer to know the people in the area he or she patrols? Very rarely are officers even out of their patrol car anymore, so the idea of â€Å"community policing† is probably not very appealing to them. More prevalent now without the strict housing restrictions placed on officers to live where they work from decades ago. The consequence of this becomes the detachment of that relationship between police and the citizens. An â€Å"us vs. them† mentality is formed and a deterioration of the communication needed between those two entities can ultimately lead to the surging crime rates of the past and eventual devastation of the community from the inside out. It is here that a strong argument can made that a meshing of the two methods is needed in order to protect the quality of life all citizens are entitled and maintain a strict sense of order, even among the so called â€Å"petty crimes†, so that larger offenses are avoided.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.