The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that the visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior and civil disturbance create an urban environment that encourages crime and further disruption, including serious crime. This theory suggests that policing methods that target minor crimes such as vandalism, public drinking and tax evasion help create an atmosphere of order and legitimacy, thus preventing more serious crimes.
This theory was introduced in a 1982 article by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Further popularized in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton and Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a policy-driven police policy.
This theory has been debated in both the social sciences and the public sphere. In some cases, interrupted window polishing has become linked to controversial police practices such as the use of "stops, questions, and friction" by the New York City Police Department. In response, Bratton and Kelling have written that the interrupted window polishing should not be treated as "zero tolerance" or "fanatics," but as a method requiring "careful training, guidance and supervision" and a positive relationship with society, community policing.
Video Broken windows theory
Articles and crime prevention
James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling first introduced broken window theory in an article titled Broken Windows, in March 1982 The Atlantic Monthly . The title comes from the following example:
Consider buildings with multiple broken windows. If the window is not fixed, the tendency is for the troublemaker to break some more windows. Finally, they can even get into the building, and if it's empty, it might be a squatter or a mild fire inside.
Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more garbage accumulates. Eventually, people even start to leave garbage bags from the restaurants there or even get into the car.
The article received much attention and was widely quoted. Criminology 1996 and the book of urban sociology, Improving Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crimes in Our Community by George L. Kelling and Catharine Coles, based on the article but developing the argument in more detail. It discusses theories in relation to crime and strategies to contain or eliminate crime from urban environments.
A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, according to the authors of this book, is to solve problems when they are small. Fixed a broken window in a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that the vandals are very unlikely to break more windows or do further damage. Clean the sidewalks every day, and the tendency is to keep the garbage from accumulating (or for the amount of litter is much less haphazard). Problems tend not to increase and "respectable" citizens do not escape the environment.
Although police work is essential to crime prevention, Oscar Newman, in his 1972 book, Defensible Space, writes that the presence of police authority is not enough to keep the city safe and crime free. People in the community help crime prevention. Newman proposes that people care about and protect the spaces they feel invested, arguing that an area is ultimately safer if people feel a sense of ownership and responsibility for the area. Broken windows and vandalism still occur frequently because people are not concerned with damage. Regardless of the number of times the windows are repaired, people still have to invest some of their time to stay safe. The residents' negligence from window window damage signals a lack of concern for the community. Newman said this is a clear sign that the public has accepted this disturbance - allowing unimproved windows to show vulnerability and lack of defense. Malcolm Gladwell also attributes this theory to the reality of NYC in his book The Tipping Point.
This theory makes two major claims: that petty crime and low-level anti-social behavior are hindered, and the great crime is prevented as a result. Critics of theory tend to focus disproportionately on the latter claim.
Maps Broken windows theory
Theoretical explanation
The reasons for the urban environment may affect crime may be three factors:
- social norms and conformities,
- the presence or lack of regular monitoring, and
- social signals and crime signals.
In an anonymous urban environment, with little or no others around it, social norms and monitoring are not known clearly. Individuals thus seek signals within environments such as social norms in regulation and the risk of being caught violates these norms; one of the cues is the general view of the region.
Under the broken window theory, a regular and clean environment, maintained, sends signals that the area is monitored and that criminal behavior is not tolerated. In contrast, irregular environments, untreated environments (broken windows, graffiti, excessive waste), send signals that the area is not monitored and the criminal behavior has little risk of detection.
This theory assumes that the landscape "communicates" with others. A broken window transmits to the criminals the message that a community displays a lack of informal social control and thus can not or does not defend itself against a criminal invasion. It's not so much the actual broken windows that matters, but the broken window messages send to people. It symbolizes the inability and vulnerability of the community and represents the lack of cohesiveness of the people in it. Environments with a strong sense of cohesion repair damaged windows and affirm social responsibility to themselves, effectively giving them control over their space.
This theory emphasizes the built environment, but also must consider human behavior.
Under the impression that the damaged shutters that remain are not fixed leads to more serious problems, the population is beginning to change the way they see their community. In an effort to stay safe, a cohesive community begins to collapse, as individuals begin to spend less time in communal spaces to avoid potential violent attacks by foreigners. The slow decline of a community as a result of a broken window changes the way people behave when it comes to their communal space, which, in turn, breaks people's control. When rowdy teenagers, beggars, addicts, and prostitutes slowly enter the community, it indicates that the community can not assert informal social control, and citizens fear that bad things will happen. As a result, they spend less time on the road to avoid these subjects and feel less connected from their community if the problem persists.
Sometimes, people tolerate "broken windows" because they feel they belong to the community and "know where they are." The problem, however, arises when outsiders begin to disrupt the cultural structure of society. That's the difference between a "stay" and a "stranger" in a community. The "fixed" way of acting represents the culture within, but the stranger is the "outsider" who does not belong.
As a result, daily activity is considered "normal" for residents now becoming uncomfortable, because community culture brings different nuances from the old way.
With regard to social geography, broken window theory is a way of explaining people and their interactions with space. Community culture can deteriorate and change over time with the influence of people and undesirable behavior that alters the landscape. This theory can be seen as the people who form space as politeness and the attitude of society creates a space used for a particular purpose by the population. On the other hand, it can also be seen as a space that shapes people with elements of the environment that affect and limit daily decision-making.
However, with policing attempts to remove irregular, irregular people who put fear in the public eye, the argument seems to support "people who form the space" when public policy is enacted and helps to determine how a person should behave. All spaces have their own code of ethics, and what is considered true and normal will vary from one place to another.
This concept also considers spatial exclusion and social division because certain people who behave in some way are perceived as intrusive and therefore undesirable. This excludes people from certain spaces because their behavior does not match the class level of the community and its environment. A community has its own standards and communicates a strong message to criminals, with social control, that their environment does not tolerate their behavior. However, if a community is not able to ward off criminals, they will help those efforts.
By removing unwanted people from the streets, the inhabitants feel safer and have a higher respect for those who protect them. The less civilized person who tries to make a mark in the community is removed, according to theory. Excluding disobedient people and people with certain social status is an effort to maintain the balance and cohesiveness of a community.
Drafts
Many claim that informal social control can be an effective strategy for reducing unorganized behavior. Garland 2001 states that "community policing measures in awareness that informal social controls conducted through daily relationships and institutions are more effective than legal sanctions". Informal social control methods have demonstrated "pro-active" attitudes by proactive citizens, and expressed the feeling that disorderly behavior is not tolerated. According to Wilson and Kelling, there are two types of groups involved in maintaining order, the 'public watchdog' and 'vigilance' of the United States have adopted in many ways policing strategies in the European period, and at that time informal social control is the norm, leading to formal policing contemporary. Although, in earlier times, there were no legal sanctions to follow, informal policing was particularly 'objective' driven as stated by Wilson and Kelling (1982).
Wilcox et al. 2004 argues that improper land use can lead to chaos, and the more public land, the more vulnerable to criminal aberrations. Therefore, non-residential space such as business, can assume the responsibility of informal social control "in the form of supervision, communication, supervision, and intervention." It is expected that more foreigners occupying public land create higher opportunities for distractions. Jane Jacobs can be considered one of the original pioneers of this broken windows perspective. Much of his book The Death and Life of Great American Cities focuses on the contribution of citizens and non-residents to maintaining order on the road, and explains how local businesses, institutions, and shops give a sense of "eye on the road."
In contrast, many residents feel that regulating interference is not their responsibility. Wilson and Kelling found that research conducted by psychologists suggests people often refuse to help someone who seeks help, not because of a lack of attention or selfishness, but the absence of some plausible reason to feel that someone should personally accept responsibility "On the side etc., others clearly refuse to put themselves in jeopardy, depending on how seriously they perceive the disorder, a 2004 study observed that "most research on disorders is based on individual-level perceptions separated from systematic problems with environment-generating disorders. "Basically, everyone feels the disorder differently, and can contemplate the seriousness of the crime based on that perception, but Wilson and Kelling feel that although community involvement can make a difference," the police is clearly the key to ordering maintenance.
Role of fear
Ranasinghe argues that the concept of fear is an important element of the broken window theory, because it is the foundation of theory. He also added that public disruption is "... explicitly built as problematic as it is a source of fear." Fear increases as the perception of disorder increases; creating a social pattern that tears the social fabric of the community, and makes the inhabitants feel hopeless and disconnected. Wilson and Kelling allude to the idea, but do not focus on its main interests. They show that fear is the product of impolite, not evil, and that people avoid each other in response to fear, weakening of control. Hinkle and Weisburd found that police intervention to combat small offenses, according to the damaged window model, "significantly increases the likelihood of insecurity," suggests that such interventions may offset the benefits of broken window strikes in terms of fear reduction.
Difference with "zero tolerance"
The polishing of broken windows is sometimes described as a "zero tolerance" policing style, including in some academic studies. However, some key supporters such as Bratton and Kelling argue that there are major differences. In 2014, they outline the difference between "broken window pruning" and "zero tolerance":
Critics use the term "zero tolerance" in a derogatory sense to claim that the broken Windows polishing is a form of bigotry - the imposition of standards of rigid and moralistic behavior on diverse populations. It is not that. Broken Windows is a highly discretionary police activity that requires careful training, guidance and supervision, as well as ongoing dialogue with the environment and community to ensure that it is done properly.
Bratton and Kelling suggest that the authorities should be effective in catching small offenders while also giving them light punishment. Quoting tariff fraud as an example, they argue that the police should try to catch the tariff avoidance, and that most should be summoned to court rather than arrested and given punishment other than imprisonment. The aim is to prevent small offenders from committing more serious crimes in the future and reduce prison populations in the long run.
Critical development
In an earlier publication of The Atlantic released in March 1982, Wilson wrote an article which indicates that police efforts are gradually shifting from maintaining order to the fight against evil. This shows that order maintenance is a thing of the past, and it immediately seems like it has been put on the back of the stove. This shift was associated with the emergence of social urban unrest in the 1960s, and "social scientists began to carefully explore the function of maintaining police order, and to suggest ways to improve it - not to make roads safer (its original function) but to reduce incidents bulk violence ". Other criminologists argue between the same termination, for example, Garland argues that throughout the early and mid-20th century, police in American cities tried to distance themselves from the environment under their jurisdiction. This is a possible indicator of social unrest beyond the usual control of the time. There are still many who agree that reducing crime and violence begins by maintaining control/social order.
Jane Jacobs' Death and Life of Great American Cities is discussed in detail by Ranasinghe, and the importance of it to the early work of the broken window, and claims that Kelling's original interest in "minor abuses and disorderly conduct and condition "inspired by Jacobs work. Ranasinghe included that Jacobs's approach to social disorganization centered on "their streets and sidewalks, the main public spaces of a city" and that they "are the most vital organs, because they provide the ultimate visual sight." Wilson and Kelling, and Jacobs, argue about the concept of modesty (or lack thereof) and how to create a lasting distortion between crime and disorder. Ranasinghe explained that the general framework of the two authors is to narrate the problems facing urban public places. Jacobs, according to Ranasinghe, states that "Citizenship serves as an informal social control tool, slightly subject to institutionalized norms and processes, such as the law" 'but is maintained through' a complicated, almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls. standards among people... and enforced by the people themselves. "
Case study
Trial precursors
Before the introduction of this theory by Wilson and Kelling, Philip Zimbardo, a Stanford psychologist, arranged experiments testing a broken-window theory in 1969. Zimbardo arranged a car without license plates and a hood to be parked idle in the Bronx neighborhood and a second car under conditions the same to be established in Palo Alto, California. The car in the Bronx was attacked within minutes of being abandoned. Zimbardo notes that the first "troublemaker" to arrive was the family - father, mother and a young son - who took out radiators and batteries. Within twenty-four hours of abandonment, all the precious things have been stripped of the vehicle. After that, the car window was destroyed, the torn part was torn, the upholstery was torn, and the children used the car as a playground. At the same time, the vehicle sat quietly in Palo Alto sitting untouched for more than a week until Zimbardo himself climbed into the vehicle and deliberately destroyed it with a hammer. Soon after, people join for destruction. Zimbardo observed that the majority of adult "troublemakers" in both cases were particularly well-dressed, Caucasian, clean-up, and seemingly respectable people. It is believed that, in environments such as the Bronx where the history of property and theft are abandoned more generally, vandalism occurs much more quickly because society generally seems apathetic. A similar event can occur in every civilized society when communal obstacles - mutual respect and duty of courtesy - are derived by acts of apathy.
New York City
In 1985, the New York City Transit Authority hired George L. Kelling, author of Broken Windows as a consultant. Kelling was then hired as a consultant to Boston and the Los Angeles police.
One of Kelling's followers, David L. Gunn implements policies and procedures based on Windows Damaged Theory during his tenure as President of the New York City Transit Authority. One of his main efforts was to lead the campaign from 1984 to 1990 to get rid of graffiti from the New York subway system.
In 1990, William J. Bratton became head of the New York City Transit Police. Bratton was influenced by Kelling, describing him as his "intellectual mentor". In his role he adopted a tougher attitude on tariff avoidance, faster processing methods, and background checks on all that were captured.
Having been elected Mayor of New York City in 1993 as a Republican, Rudy Giuliani hired Bratton as police commissioner to implement similar policies and practices throughout the city. Giuliani greatly subscribed to Kelling and Wilson's theories. Such policies emphasize the handling of crimes that negatively affect the quality of life. In particular, Bratton directs the police to stricter enforce laws against embezzlement of subway fares, public drinking, public urination, and graffiti. He increased law enforcement against "squeegee men", those who aggressively demanded payment at traffic stops for unsuspecting car window cleaning. Bratton also revived the New York City Cabaret Law, a prohibition on the prohibition of a previously inactive ban on dancing in unlicensed companies. Throughout the late 1990s the NYPD closed many of the city's famous night spots for illegal dancing.
According to a 2001 study of crime trends in New York City by Kelling and William Sousa, small and serious crime rates dropped significantly after the above-mentioned policies were implemented. Furthermore, crime continues to decline over the next ten years. The decline shows that policies based on Damaged Window Theory are effective.
However, other studies have found no cause and effect relationship between the adoption of such policies and the decline in crime. The decline may have been part of a broader trend across the United States. Other cities also experience less crime, although they have different police policies. Other factors, such as a 39% drop in New York City unemployment rates, could also explain the declines reported by Kelling and Sousa.
A 2017 study found that when the New York Police Department ceased to enforce aggressive small law legislation in late 2014 and early 2015 that "civil grievances over major crimes (such as robberies, assaults of crime and large thefts) declined over and shortly after sharp cuts in proactive police force results of the current scholarship challenge as well as conventional wisdom on legal authority and compliance, as they imply that aggressively enforcing minor laws incites more severe criminal acts. "
Albuquerque
Albuquerque, New Mexico, instituted the Safe Streets Program in the late 1990s under the Damaged Window Theory. Operating under the theory that Western Americans use the highways much in the same way as the East Americans used the subway, the program developers reasoned that the violations of the law on the highway had many of the same effects as those in New York City Subway. The program effects were reviewed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and published in case studies.
Lowell, Massachusetts
In 2005, researchers at Harvard University and Suffolk University worked with local police to identify 34 "crime sites" in Lowell, Massachusetts. In half of the places, authorities clean up garbage, install streetlights, building codes imposed, uninspired homeless, commit more arrests for offenses, and expand mental health services and assistance for the homeless. In the other half of the identified location, there was no change to routine police services.
Areas receiving additional attention experience a 20% reduction in calls to the police. The study concludes that cleansing the physical environment is more effective than light arrest and that the improvement of social services has no effect.
Dutch
In 2007 and 2008 Kees Keizer and colleagues from the University of Groningen conducted a series of controlled trials to determine whether the effects of visible disorders (such as garbage or graffiti) increased other crimes such as theft, littering, or other antisocial behavior. They chose several urban locations, which they compiled in two different ways, at different times. In each trial, there is a condition of "disturbance" in which violations of social norms such as those determined by national signs or customs, such as graffiti and littering, are clearly visible and control conditions in which no violation of the norm occurs. The researchers then secretly monitor the location to be observed if people behave differently when the environment is "disorganized". Their observations support the theory. The conclusion is published in the journal Science: One example of distractions, such as graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage others, such as stealing. "
Other benefits
Real estate
Other side effects of better road monitoring and clearance may be desired by government or housing agents and the environmental population: damaged windows can be considered as indicators of low real estate values ​​and may deter investors. Fixing windows is therefore also a real estate development step, which can cause, whether it is desired or not, for gentrification. By reducing the number of broken windows in the community, the inner cities will look attractive to consumers with more capital. Cleaning up space like downtown New York and Chicago, famous for its criminal activities, the dangers of attracting investment from consumers, improving the city's economic status, providing a safe and pleasant image for current and future residents.
Education
In education, the broken window theory is used to promote order in the classroom and school culture. The belief is that students are marked by disorder or termination of the rules and that they in turn mimic the disorder. Some school movements encourage rigorous paternalistic practices to enforce student discipline. Such practices include language codes (arranging hoses, swear words, or talking without turn), classroom etiquette (sitting upright, tracking the speaker), personal clothing (uniform, little or no jewelry), and codes of conduct (walking on the line , designated bathroom time). Some schools have made significant strides in educational gains with this philosophy such as the Strength Knowledge Program and the American Indian Public Charter School.
From 2004 to 2006, Stephen B. Plank and colleagues from Johns Hopkins University conducted a correlational study to determine the extent to which the physical appearance of schools and classrooms affected student behavior, particularly in terms of the variables involved in their study: fear, social disturbance, and collective efficacy. They collected survey data given to the 6th to 8th students by 33 public schools in a major city in the Middle Atlantic. From the analysis of survey data, the researchers determined that the variables in their study were statistically significant for school physical conditions and classroom settings. The conclusions published in the American Journal of Education , are
... findings from current studies suggest that educators and researchers should be wary of factors that affect students' perceptions of climate and safety. Fixing a broken window and attending a school's physical appearance can not itself guarantee productive teaching and learning, but ignoring it will likely increase the likelihood of a degenerate spiral.
Police
Broken window arrest is a form of policing based on broken window theory. It is also sometimes called policing the quality of life . William J. Bratton popularized this police strategy as a New York City police commissioner during the mid-1990s.
Criticism
Other factors
Many critics argue that other factors besides physical disorder have more significant effect on crime rate. They argue that efforts to more effectively reduce crime rates should target or pay more attention to such factors.
According to a study by Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush, the premise in which the theory operates, that social disorder and crime connected as part of a causal chain, is wrong. They argue that the third factor, the collective efficacy, "defined as cohesion between populations combined with shared expectations for social control of the public sphere," is the real cause of the various crime rates observed in changing environmental settings. They also argue that the relationship between public disturbance and crime rates is weak.
CR Sridhar, in his article on Economic and Political Weekly, also challenged the theory behind broken window strikes and the idea that William Bratton's policies and the New York Police Department were the cause of the crime rate decline in New York City. This policy targets people in areas with significant physical impairment and there appears to be a causal relationship between adoption of damaged windows and reduced crime rates. Sridhar, however, discusses other trends (such as the New York City economic boom of the late 1990s) that created a "perfect storm" that contributed to the decline in crime rates far more significantly than the adoption of damaged window policies. Sridhar also compares this decrease in crime rates with other big cities that adopt various other policies and specifies that broken window policies are not as effective as possible.
The Baltimore Criminologist, Ralph B. Taylor, argues in his book that fixing windows is only a partial and short-term solution. The data support the materialist view: changes in levels of physical damage, superficial social disorder, and racial composition do not lead to higher crime, but the economic downturn is not. He argues that the example shows that real long-term crime reduction requires city politicians, businesses, and community leaders to work together to increase the economic wealth of the population in high crime areas.
Another tactic taken by the 2010 study questioned the legitimacy of the theory about the subjectivity of the disturbance felt by people living in the environment. It is concentrated on whether citizens view disorder as a separate matter of crime or identical to it. The study notes that crime can not be the result of disorder if both are identical, agreeing that the disorder provides evidence of "convergent validity" and concludes that window theory breaks misinterpreting the relationship between disturbance and crime.
In recent years, there has been increasing attention to the correlation between the level of environmental feedback and crime. In particular, there appears to be a correlation with 25-year lag with the addition and removal of lead from paint and gasoline and up and down in murder arrests.
Implicit bias
Robert J. Sampson argues that based on a common misconception by the masses, it is clearly implied that those who engage in disorder and crime have a clear connection to groups suffering from financial instability and perhaps minority status: "The use of racial contexts to encode Disorders does not necessarily mean that people racially abused in the sense of personal animosity. "He notes that citizens make clear implications about who they believe causes disturbance, which has been called an implicit bias. He further states that research conducted on implicit biases and cultural stereotypes shows that community members hold unrelenting confidence in African Americans and other disadvantaged minorities, linking them with crime, violence, disorder, welfare, and unlucky as a neighbor. A later study showed that this contradicts Wilson and Kelling's proposition that disorders are exogenous constructs that have an independent effect on how people feel about their environment.
Criminology
According to some criminologists who speak of a "broader reaction," the theory of broken windows is not theoretically sound. They claim that the "broken window theory" is closely related to causality, a prone to error. David Thacher, assistant professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of Michigan, stated in a 2004 paper:
[S] ocial science is not good against broken windows theory. A number of scholars are re-analyzing early studies that seem to support it.... Others urge forward with new, more sophisticated studies of the relationship between chaos and evil. The most prominent of them concludes that the relationship between chaos and serious crime is simple, and even that relationship is largely a more fundamental artifact of social power.
It has also been argued that major crime rates have also declined in many other US cities during the 1990s, both of which have adopted broken window cuts as well as those that do not. In the winter of the 2006 edition of the Chicago University Legal Review, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig looked at the Urban Housing and Urban Development program that reinvested the inner-city project tenants in New York in a more orderly manner. environment. The broken window theory will show that these tenants will commit less crimes once moved due to more stable conditions on the streets. However, Harcourt and Ludwig found that tenants continued to commit crimes at the same rate.
In a 2007 study called "Reefer Madness" in the journal Criminology and Public Policy Harcourt and Ludwig found further evidence confirming that refunds meant fully explaining changes in crime rates in different parts of New York in 1990. Further explanatory alternatives have been suggested including reduced crack epidemics, unrelated growth in prison populations by the Rockefeller drug laws, and that the number of men from 16 to 24 declines regardless of the shape of the US population. pyramid.
Weakness in practice
The polishing of broken windows sometimes becomes associated with bigotry, which has led to criticisms that suggest that it encourages discriminatory behavior. Some campaigns such as Black Lives Matter have called for an end to the polishing of broken windows. In 2016, a Justice Department report argues that it has caused the Baltimore Police Department to discriminate and alienate minorities.
In response, Kelling and Bratton argue that the polishing of damaged windows does not discriminate against law-abiding communities of minority groups if implemented properly. They Citied Disorders and Decreases: Crime and Spiral of Decay in the American Environment , a study by Wesley Skogan at the University of California. The study included a survey of 13,000 inhabitants of a large city and concluded that different ethnic groups had the same ideas as what they perceived as "distractions".
Low-level police interference in the neighborhood has been perceived as problematic. Therefore, Gary Stewart writes, "The major shortcoming of the approach put forward by Wilson, Kelling, and Kennedy lies in their joint blindness to the potentially harmful effects of broad police policy on minority communities." It was seen by the authors, who feared that people would be arrested "because of unwanted 'crimes'. According to Stewart, the argument for low-level police intervention, including a broken window hypothesis, often acts "as a cover for racist behavior".
A common criticism of broken policing is the argument that criminalizes the poor and the homeless. That's because the physical signs that characterize an environment with "disruptions" that violate the target polarizing window are correlated with the socio-economic conditions of the inhabitants. Many actions that are considered legal but "irregular" are often targeted in public settings and are not targeted when done in private. Therefore, those who do not have access to private space are often criminalized. Critics, such as Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush of Harvard University, see the application of window theories break out in the police force as a war against the poor, as opposed to a war against more serious crime.
In Dorothy Roberts's article, "Foreword: Race, Unclear, and Social Meaning of Order Maintenance and Policing," he focuses on the problem of breaking window theory, which leads to the criminalization of the color community, which is not usually represented.. He underscored the danger of a vaguely written ordinance that made it possible for law enforcers to determine who was involved in irregular acts, which, in turn, yielded unbalanced results in crime statistics.
According to Bruce D. Johnson, Andrew Golub, and James McCabe, the application of broken window theory in policing and policy-making can result in development projects that reduce physical disturbance but promote unwanted gentrification. Often, when a city is so "fixed" in this way, the development of an area can cause the cost of living to rise higher than the population can bear, forcing low-income, often minority, people out of the area. As space changed, the middle and upper classes, often white, began to move into the area, resulting in urban gentrification, poor. The locals were negatively affected by the application of broken window theory and were eventually expelled from their homes as if their presence indirectly contributed to the problem areas of "physical disorder".
Popular pressures
In More Weapons, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2000), economist John Lott, Jr. examine the use of broken window approaches as well as community oriented policing programs and problems in cities over 10,000 in the population, over two decades. He found that the impact of this policing policy was not very consistent across the different types of crime. Lott's book has been criticized, but other groups support Lott's conclusion.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments