Theories Of Broken Windows Theory

Zero Tolerance is vital to regenerate urban environments. There is no point building in inner cities if we don't protect these resources from graffiti and vandalism. Zero tolerance reduces the amount of dead ground used for drug

To put the broken windows theory to the test, Kelling was hired as a consultant by the New York City Transit Authority. The subway system was cleaned—specifically targeting graffiti removal. In 1990, William Bratton, an admirer of Kelling, took over the Transit Police and implemented a zero-tolerance for fare-dodging and easier processing of those arrested. These strategies, among others, became part of Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s “quality of life” initiative. [2] Was it effective? A later study of crime trends in New York City showed the rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly after these actions were instituted.

In order to slow the skyrocketing crime rate and protect its citizens, New York City officials made it a priority to establish new ways of policing. The first major initiative of this new strategy shift was to deploy more narcotic teams in the most

Departments that practice this type of policing believe that being proactive with quality-of-life violations instead of reactive will bring down the rate of more serious crimes. For example, “in the 1990s broken windows theory was first initiated New York City by Police Commissioner

With the creation of the zero tolerance policy, it changed the way student are being disciplined. In the 1990’s, in fear of the increasing crime rate, The United States Congress created a law that allowed public schools to enforce strict disciplinary policies for misbehaving students (Mental Health America). The zero tolerance policy states: “[the policy] mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context”

Arguments have been made that the application of the Broken Windows style of policing leads to negative results for the poor and minority residents of the area impacted. The application of the Broken Windows style of policing did leads to negative results for the poor and minority residents of the area impacted. Fagan & Davies (2000) “When it comes to debating theories of crime and law, some people pretend that race does not matter at all, while others accord it undue, if not determinative, significance. There is now strong empirical evidence that individuals of color are more likely than white Americans to be stopped, questioned, searched, and arrested by police.” For example, according to Fagan & Davies (2000) “The OAG Report showed that stops were disproportionately concentrated in the city 's poorest neighborhoods, neighborhoods with high

The adoption of this policy has exposed a great deal of racism existing in the police force. The worst disparities in arrests between African Americans and whites were in the crimes where officers were given the most discretion, including: possession of small amounts of marijuana, loitering and disorderly conduct. In a study of New Jersey police departments it was found that black people were two to six times more likely to be arrested for these low level crimes(3). When the amount of discretion officers are given goes up, it causes the disparities in arrests to increase. This means there is implicit bias in at least some police officers, against African Americans. While zero tolerance policing is nonsensical and horrific, what it has done is offer a crystal clear window showing the racism indisputably existing in the police force, and the necessity of

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 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

Zero tolerance policing holds that strict non-discretionary law enforcement that is tough on crime, specifically minor offenses will decrease more serious crime. This policing style is closely related

During the pass few class discussion, we have talked about several topics including the broken windows theory, the epidemic curve, and if negative social epidemics undergo the same spreading process. We said that the broken windows theory is now outdated and would not successfully stop crime in ways that it used to. In today's world, it can even be scene as a harmful policing procedure, in that excessively ticking on small crimes can lead in some cases to racial discrimination. The following day, we discussed what the epidemic curve looks like, and where all of the key components go. After much debate, the general consensus was that the innovators start a trends, and then in order for that trent to take off a maven, salesmen, or connector

Zero tolerance policing was the style adopted by New York City in the 1990's. This style of policing aims to associate the full and complete enforcement of all criminal violations, from minor infractions (such as disorderly conduct or public loitering) to major crimes (such as robbery and burglary). Therefore, by clamping

“Zero-Tolerance Policy” is the leading cause of most disobedient students, the reason why most students drop out of school and the cause of insubordination among students. The Zero-Tolerance Policy is a policy that, like the name states, has zero-tolerance for anything. Anything seen as a threat or anything that sends an inappropriate message towards the community is considered bad and the student could get arrested, suspended and/or expelled. The Zero-Tolerance policy applies to any student, regardless if a student has any health problems and falls to any student between the ages of 4-18. It could also apply to a student who could have the lowest amount of infractions possible. They say that removing students is necessary for learning, but, in doing that, they hurt the student as well. Some places don’t provide alternative places for students to learn at, really taking away their education. If it really ensures a safe and orderly environment for children, then there should be proof. There is no actual proof that it makes students feel safer (Wahl, "School Zero Tolerance Policies Do Harm" par. 1). It alienates the student and makes the student feel as if they are the “odd-one out”. Due to the injustices that this creates, the Zero-Tolerance Policy is ineffective, because it teaches students injustice, lowers students academic rates and minor offences are punished.

Another top reason for the decline is that many police forces have started interrogating small offenders like those crimes that are more serious. This tactic has generated a number of leads, which in turn provides search warrants, multiple gun and drug arrests, and even homicide arrests (Giuliani Art. 108). Giuliani acknowledges that "the broken window theory of, James O. Wilson of Harvard University, has been applied successfully in America's largest cities. Wilson says a broken window that goes unrepaired is a visible sing that no one cares. It attracts additional vandalism, which soon escalates into serious crimes" (Giuliani Art. 108). Giuliani also adds "graffiti, blurring car radios, street prostitution, drag racing, public drinking and urination, squeegee window cleaners, and other aggressive beggars are, in effect, society's broken windows" (Giuliani Art. 108). These broken windows can and usually will lead to larger problems.