The Broken Window Theory Of Crime

Describing and Evaluating the Major Theories of Cause of Criminal Behaviour and the Impact of Crime on Victims and Society

This essay will outline how crime theories are able to assist in recognizing the causes of criminal activity, as well as demonstrating two criminological theories to two particular crimes. Overviews of trends, dimensions and victim/offenders characteristics of both crime groups will be specified. The two particular crimes that will be demonstrated throughout this essay are; Violent Crime (focusing on Assault) being linked with social learning theory and White Collar crime (focusing on terrorism) being linked to General Strain theory. In criminology, determining the motive of why people commit crimes is crucial. Over the years, many theories have been developed and they continue to be studied as criminologists pursue the best answers in eventually diminishing certain types of crime including assaults and terrorism, which will be focused on.

In the article, “Is Broken Windows a Broken Theory of Crime?” Kevin Drum defines the Broken Windows theory as a theory which “suggests that tolerance of small acts of disorder creates an environment that leads to rising amounts of serious crime. So if police crack down on small offenses – petty vandalism, public lewdness, etc. – crime reductions will follow” Though this theory has been around for a long time, it is still not a sound theory of crime.

The broken windows model of policing was first described in 1982 by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Briefly. In 1993, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani adopted the Broken Windows Theory and implemented a community-policing strategy focused on order

The broken windows theory, originally pioneered by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling argues that a broken window is a sign that no one cares about the appearance of the property. This proverbial broken window in turn encourages other residents to neglect their property. This further sends the entire neighborhood into a downward spiral, we begin to see large amounts of litter scattered throughout the neighborhood, home owners move out, houses become vacant and left to deteriorate, rental properties begin to spring up, and single family homes are turned into multifamily homes. As the income of residents decreases so does the property value of the neighborhood, and gradually a criminal element begins to establish itself within the neighborhood.

The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that if a neighborhood looks rotten then the more trouble it welcomes. In 1982, George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson released an article focusing on the importance of the disorder. This theory is strongly attached to the African- American community. An area that shows a low population of existences states that fear or crime related situations caused the massive egress of residents. The lack of people to care for a community results into buildings looking forgotten. Therefore, broken windows appearance is a great way for convicts to hide because no one would go near a place that comes into view as spine-chilling. In additions, this produces a high risk of anxiety for African -American males believe that any moment a police officer can stop, question, and frisk them out of anticipation.

The aim of this essay is to compare, contrast and evaluate two sociological theories of crime causation and two psychological theories of crime causation.

In 2017, I feel the analogy of “broken windows” can indeed be used, however only to a certain extent. From the year 1982 to present day technology has drastically changed. Today, society as a whole plays an important part in fixing issues within a community. Law enforcement as well are now being trained to deal with possible new situations to the best of their ability. The catch phrase “if you see something, say something” is enforced by any means possible. It’s closely related to the “broken windows” theory. Additionally, if crime is on the rise in a certain area of NYC, law enforcement officials have to work alongside the community to help fix these issues. However, just because a crime has occurred in an area it does not mean the area will now be prone to other crimes or become unsafe.

a. Imagine asking 100 strangers to describe a criminal. Predict whether those descriptions would be likely to focus on street criminals, or the variety of topics covered in this video.

A theory is an explanation of why or how things are related to each other (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Additionally, a theory is defined as a plausible or scientifically acceptable principle, or a body of principles, offered to explain phenomena (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2017). Furthermore, crime theories examine and attempt to identify relationships among humans, criminal behavior, and specific factors such as biological factors, psychological factors, sociological factors, and economic factors (Bohm & Vogel, 2011). Since we have defined a theory, let us further discuss how theories are created beginning with the components of a theory.

Every theory of crime has at least 2-3 meta-theoretical levels above it. The fundamental issues are usually addressed at the approach level, and are often called the assumptions, or starting points, of a theory, although the term "assumptions" more strictly refers to the background or domain boundaries one can draw generalizations about. Above the approach level is the Perspective level, the largest unit of agreement within a scientific community, and in fact, the names for the scientific disciplines. Perspectives are sometimes called paradigms or viewpoints, although some people use the term paradigm to refer to untestable ideologies such as: (1) rational choice; (2) pathogenesis; (3) labeling;

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

Many theories of crime are macro theories, which are used to explain crime based on a large group of people or society. While macro theories are the predominant type of theory used to explain crime, there are also a variety of “individual”, or micro, factors which are equally important. Two such individual factors s are maternal cigarette smoking (MCS) and cognitive ability, or Intelligence Quotient (IQ).

Many people have different theories as to why crime exists. Some believe crime happens because of the individual’s culture, education (or lack there of), or even their race. Others believe crime is associated with whom we surround ourselves with. There are three sociological theories that suggest why crime happens in society; they are social learning theory, social control theory, and social reaction (labeling) theory. These theories suggest it is our relationships and social interactions that influence our behavior.

Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).