The Broken Windows Style Of Policing

There are numerous concerns based on the quantity and content of stop and searches which are often influenced by institutionalised racism (Home Office, 1997). Studies suggested that the police maintain a belief that black people are prone to be involved in violent crimes (Reiner, 1989). Therefore leading to black individuals routinely falling victim to police stereotypes and overgeneralisations (Bowling and Phillips, 2007). Police interviews have suggested that police perceive certain ethnicities to be involved with certain crimes, one interview suggested that if police are alerted of a robbery, 90% of the time they will assume it is involving a black individual (Quinton et al, 2000). Despite that there is evidence suggesting that racial disadvantages will cause an increase in young blacks to be involved with crime, suggesting that these suspicions are justified (Waddington et al, 2007). Furthermore, there is little research suggesting that police enforce their prejudices when working on the streets, thus suggesting that racial views are a result of police canteen sub-culture (Waddington, 1999).

Numbers suggest that, for instance, while Blacks compose six percent of population in St. Clayton city, they represent 57% of overall police arrests. Similarly, the probability of Black arrest in Berkeley (CA) and Madison (Wis) cities is nine times higher than other racial groups compared to their corresponding population. In addition to this, Bureau of Justice statistics report that at the national level, Blacks are two times more likely to be arrested compared to Whites. Concurring with media reports and national statistics institutes’ estimates, empirical studies also report high proportion of minority arrests compared to their representation in the population (Golub, Johnson, & Dunlap, 2007).

The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.

Law enforcement officials often confront situations where it’s an almost certainty that illegal activities are taking place despite not having sufficient resources to investigate every possible perpetrator. Research on race and vehicle stops by police show that African American drivers are disproportionately stopped in traffic by police for driving violations (Kowalski & Lundman, 2007). The reason is because law enforcement officials use characterizations or

With blacks being stopped more than half of the time, and Latinos being stopped around 30 percent, its clear why these groups along with other minority groups feel they are being singled out and picked on; in fact, Mayor Bill de Blasio even made a public apology for the policy’s negative impact after the New York Times (2014) claimed that Judge Shira A. Scheindlin described it as “a policy of indirect racial profiling.” It’s reasons like these that encourage people to believe this tactic is inherently corrupt. If police officers are not using clear logic and reasonable suspicion when stopping individuals, it can create a major separation between our law enforcement agents and society and allow for noble cause corruption. While this policy has the ability to create major distrust and dislike for the cops, however, it can also have a very positive impact as well. For example, if officers continue to improve the accuracy of their stops and become more successful in taking weapons off the streets and deterring crime, their communities should begin to back them and also this

The Broken Windows theory is not a sound theory of crime because “the Supreme Court’s 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision established the “reasonable suspicion” threshold for stopping and questioning” (Kelling and Bratton, “Why We Need Broken Windows Policing”) during the Reagan administration which resulted in “a large percentage of those stopped were minorities, and critics and plaintiffs in federal court proceedings questioned whether all these stops could have been based on reasonable suspicion, especially when only 6 percent resulted in arrests” (Kelling and Bratton). Michelle Alexander noted that since the war on drugs, declared by President Reagan, there has been an increased number of whites imprisoned, but they only make up a small proportion compared to African Americans and Latinos (Selby, “The Color of Justice”). The Broken Windows theory is not supported by the stop and frisk enforcement because it led to bigger problems for minorities such as pretext stops to target people who fit the ‘drug-courier profile,’ forfeiture,

The article “Report suggests NYPD’s ‘broken windows’ policing doesn’t work” discusses the study and report put together by the Department of Investigation that states that the extensive policing of low-level misdemeanors had no effect on the amount of felony crime. Furthermore, this study also found that broken windows policing also disproportionately impacts minority populations as black, Hispanic, and impoverished communities had much higher rates of misdemeanor arrests and court summonses than white communities.

A broken window can mean a lot of things, but what matters is if it will be replaced with a new one, or left untouched. Why does it matter if it is replaced or not? leaving the window untouched defines that particular area as either abandoned or unimportant rather than occupied or cared for. This all ties into the broken windows theory, and more importantly broken windows style policing. Broken windows policing is gaining more concern by minorities every day, simply because of the outrageous procedures officer practice to keep their jobs. New York is a highlight state that is not hesitant to speak their minds, which brought up the concerns up about the broken windows policing methods and its effectiveness. It almost seems that this style of policing specifically targets low-class people of color to prevent more serious crimes as well as crack down on outstanding warrants. However, broken windows policing causes more turmoil than it does assist the public because broken windows policing is not fair since it targets low-income people of color for no reason, which shown to lead to harassment or even death. The main concern regarding broken windows policing is the effectiveness of it, the conclusion of results found in this (in my eyes) policing harassment methodology. To my knowledge, I have not come about any evidence for it that it

Apart from periodically publishing stop and search records, supervisors and managers of police force are now required to closely monitor such statistics and take timely actions if something wrong is being observed. Also stricter rules on stop and search have since been imposed, along with the requirement of police officers writing a detailed report on spot about every single incident which subjects to review seems helpful in improving police conduct (Fyfe 1979; Skogan and Frydl 2004 in Miller 2010). While stop and search practice has been somehow improved, racial discrimination can still be seen in stop and search statistics. The notion of “Black and minority ethnic groups, particularly black people, have for many years been disproportionately at the receiving end of police stop and search—a fact associated with profound community resentment towards the police” (Bowling and Phillips 2002 in Miller 2010) still largely applies today. Miller’s (2010) analysis indicate that black people are about 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched, while it is about 2 times more likely for Asians. Similar idea is seen in Bennetto’s (2009) report, which draws on police statistics that shows in 2009 “black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white”, worse than Miller’s analysis with the most recent figures in 2008. No official explaination is provided by Police, but Bennetto (2009) assumes this may be caused by simply discrimination of

The idea has its roots in the “broken windows” theory, which claims that tolerating minor infractions encourages serious violent crime by ‘signaling that the community is not in control.’ Adoption of this theory in New York City led to a national trend toward “zero tolerance” approaches to street crime and school discipline, under which any infraction, no matter the circumstances or severity, is subject to harsh penalties. When coupled with the “zero tolerance” approach, this type of policing favors arrests over service and conflict resolution, or in situations where a warning or citation would otherwise be issued. This in turn contributes to soaring numbers of arrests, largely of people of color, and increased police brutality. It targets women and trans people of color who are the most marginalized, including street-based sex workers, homeless people, people with mental illness, and people with a drug addiction, or women and trans people of color who are profiled as such by police. This along with the fact that the NYPD has done little to change the perception that policing can target minorities through QOL policing

“One. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked (Quigley, 2010).” Police stops are a very common effect on society. It isn’t fair that police don’t hold everyone accountable the same way. Not every cop is that way but there are that selected few who still have that racist mindset and hold it against innocent people. It’s no secret that in New York especially, there is a lot of crime and gang activity produced by different minority groups in the city. However, The facts does not provide a good reason that in routine stops are people of color targeted and frisked down compared to

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss the three different policing strategies known as, broken windows, zero tolerance, and problem oriented policing. Each of these strategies have both their pros and cons throughout this paper I will be describing each of these strategies along with discussing a few articles in relation to these strategies. In light of the recent tension between law enforcement and the community, specifically minorities ill also be discussing how these strategies have either helped or hurt communities.

Evidence of the disproportionate percentage of minorities incarcerated is readily available. According to Katheryn Russell, author of Color of Crime, blacks make up 12% of the overall U.S. population. Yet they represent 30% of arrests and 50% of those incarcerated (28-29). The most amazing statistic comes from Marvin Free, Jr. whose research found that African Americans living in cities with a population of 250,000 or more have a 51% chance of being arrested (African Americans..., 8). Russell listed many of the ridiculous reasons minorities have been pulled over by police officers: 1) Driving a luxury car, 2) driving with a white woman, 3) driving in a white neighborhood, 4) driving late at night and several others. The reasoning behind many traffic stops of blacks were so ludicrous that Russell believed a new charge should be established: DWB or "Driving While Black" (Color...,33).

Community Policing is a value system which infuses a police department, in which the main organizational goal is working helpfully with individual citizens, groups of citizens, and both public and private organizations to identify and resolve issues which possibly effect the livability of specific neighborhoods, areas, or the city as a whole. Community policing can be beneficial to communities. Community policing can help prevent crimes from occurring. As officers get to know a community, they also get to know what is right and wrong with it. Typically, officers remain entitled to an area where crime happens often and as such they are left with fighting it as it is going or after it happened. In community policing neighborhoods, the officers are able to tell what might happen and as

Situations like these do not give communities the necessary opportunities to know their officers and therefore the trust and unity breaks down. It is crucial for officers to remain constant in their communities as much as possible and to slowly transition to other assignments when necessary. Once trust and unity is in place, a shared vision of crime control and serving the public can take place. Law enforcement and communities can unite to form a better living environment for all. That is a shared vision that anyone would want to have and do whatever it takes to work towards.