Broken Windows

By Bradley Wright

A funny thing happens in our kitchen sink. Sometimes it doesn’t have any dirty dishes in it (okay, not that often, but it does happen). When the sink is empty, my family and I usually put our dishes straight into the dishwasher. At other times, however, there are dirty dishes sitting in the sink. When this happens, we all put any additional dishes straight into the sink, not even considering the extra several seconds it takes to put them into the dishwasher. Why in the world am I writing about my kitchen sink? It turns out that what happens with the sink is a reasonable analogy for one of the more important crime-prevention theories: the theory of broken windows.

The theory of broken windows originated from a 1982 article by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling in The Atlantic Monthly. They started with the idea that some broken windows in a building invite more broken windows. In their words:

“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, and if it’s unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.” 

“Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars."

According to Wilson and Kelling, the same holds true for neighborhoods and crime. Just as broken windows invite rocks, and dirty sinks get more dishes, so too certain characteristics of neighborhoods attract and promote crime. A neighborhood that is riddled with vandalism, litter, abandoned buildings and cars signals that no one is taking care of the neighborhood. A neighborhood that has lots of petty crime, such as public drunkenness, pickpockets, traffic violations, this signals that crime is accepted. In both cases the neighborhood is sending out a signal that crime is tolerated if not outright accepted. This encourages crime among residents of the neighborhood and it attracts criminals from other neighborhoods as well.

The importance of this theory is its implications for crime prevention. The way to cut down on crime in a given location, according to the broken window theory, is to change its physical and social characteristics. This can be done by repairing buildings, sidewalks, and roads, and fixing anything that makes a neighborhood look run down. It also means enforcing the law for even the smallest infractions. Police should ticket and/or arrest people for things as small as jaywalking, illegal panhandling, and public disorder. The logic is that by cracking down on small problems, the police are preventing more serious crimes.

The best known application of broken windows theory occurred in New York City, and depending on who you talk to, it was a smashing success in preventing crime, an irrelevant policy, or an invasion of individuals’ rights.

In 1993, Rudy Guiliani—a current presidential candidate—was elected mayor of New York City based on his “get tough on crime” platform. He hired William Bratton as the police chief. Bratton, who was heavily influenced by George Kelling, applied the principles of broken windows theory. Bratton initiated a program of zero-tolerance in which the NYPD cracked down on all sorts of minor infractions, including subway fare dodging, public drinking urinating in public, and even the squeegee men—people who would wipe the windows of stopped cars and demand payment. A friend of mine who lived in New York City at that time even saw police telling people they could not sit on milk crates on the sidewalk-- apparently that was against the law as well.

Almost immediately rates of both petty and serious crimes dropped substantially. In the first year alone, murders were down 19% and car thefts fell by 15%, and crime continued to drop ever year for the following ten years.

So, was this application of broken windows an unqualified success? Some critics say no.

In the same time period, crime dropped significantly in other major cities around the country, cities that had not adopted broken windows policy. (See figure below). Crime dropped nationwide in the 1990s, and various reasons have been given for this overall crime drop. The crack epidemic of the 1980s was subsiding, and there were fewer people in the 15 to 25 year age group, which accounts for so much crime. As such, the declines seen in New York City did not result from new police policies but rather they would have happened anyway. 

(The light blue line represents crime in Newark, NJ, purple Los Angles, red New York, and black the U.S. as a whole)

Other critics argue that regardless of the effectiveness of broken windows, it was too costly in terms of individual rights. They claim that the police, emboldened by the mandate to enforce even the smallest of laws, frequently crossed over into harassment of individuals, especially racial minorities and the poor. The application of broken windows, with its zeal for reducing crime, produced unacceptable police behavior.

Nonetheless, the results in New York City were sufficiently interesting that various police departments around the country have adopted principles of broken windows theory. In fact, William Bratton is now the police chief of Los Angeles.

P.S., this post shows that everydaysociologyblog.com covers everything of social importance, including the kitchen sink.

Comments

[karie wooten]

The broken window theory makes a good point. It is true that if you see a building with broken windows and you return a week later there will be more vandialism. If we all took part and cleaned up, we might decrease crimes.

[Ethan]

I think this really makes good sense. If we do not take small crimes seriously then how are we expected to take major ones serious? Taking petty crimes seriously is a good way to show criminals that no crime will go unpunished.

[bmabry3509]

I think that is good to enforce the minor problems because it would be costly depending on what crime it was and I think it would stop the major ones.

[Jaleesa Watkins]

In my opinion, I feel that if a police officer enforces the small laws, everyone will know they will definitely enforce the much bigger laws and nothing will be overlooked. Even though citizens were harrased and the police looked at everything they did, I feel the broken window theory was a success. Less people valdalize with a nice, upkept neighborhood.

[Karen Lane]

I believe that the Broken Window implication was a success because crime was cute down by a large amount. I think that as a whole the nation could probably make an even bigger impact on cutting down crime if we could take it by small steps and inforcing the actual laws and not making some up just to get people off the streets.

[dthomas6104]

i could only better say if i was a citizen of new york to what would we say to anyone who would brake church windows in the south.

[cecile]

I thing this method is a good solution for preventing serious crimes. It draws people to pay more attention in their response toward laws, even those that seem minor. Thus, I believe the example of NY City should be followed by other cities.

[Cholt3011]

I believed that if the police would enforced the smaller crimes just maybe it would help out with the bigger ones. If you keep getting caught for little crimes, you should learn your lesson and not do it again, I know I have learned my lesson on speeding after that ticket I have slowed down.

[Mitzi Sims]

I think that we have laws for a reason and people can't just go around here and broke the laws. And I also feel like the police needs to enforcing on the small crimes and deal with the major ones.

[mhunter1569]

I believe if people follow little lest enforced laws it would be easier to follow more stricter laws, because law is law like sin is sin

[Angela Mundy]

I do believe that if police enforce the laws on smaller crimes it will cut out the larger crimes because it will make individuals feel like they are being watched more and that the little things matter. Once you open one door, its easier for another door to open. If you keep the doors to crime closed, then chances are the doors for bigger crimes to take place will stay almost shut.

I do believe that the Broken Windows policy in NY was a success because the crime rate went down in the first year and continued to go down in the following years.

[Jliner]

I do not think that the little crimes such jaywalking and stuff will stop the major crimes such as rape and murder. I think id we did not have abandoned houses and run down buisness buildings that will stop some crime so criminals will not have a place to hide

[Emiley]

I think the broken window law in N.Y was a success simply because if it cuts down on the crime then it has succeeded. Every rule and every law has a purpose and should be completely followed,

[jewell johnson]

If we inforced minor issues, I think the crime rate world wide would rise. Yes, because the crime rate went down.

[Amanda Daugherty]

I think cracking down on petty crimes is a great idea, however it should not just resort to bad neighborhoods. If a person gets a ticket in the hood for jay walking, a person in the highest class neighborhood should, too. For example, a parent has two children, one boy and one girl. The boy gets in more trouble than the girl, so the parent is more stern. If the boy doesn't listen the first time and gets a spanking as a result (to crack down on small things) then when the girl doesn't listen the first time because she wants to be defiant at that very instant does she get a spanking as well?

[dmoore0832]

If the police enforce minor problems I do not think this will prevent more serious crimes. People are going to commit crimes regardless. Putting more people in jail just creates overcrowding, which is already an issue now. I believe the application of broken windows in New York City was not a success because crime dropped in other major cities that did not have the policy. There is still violent crimes going on today. If the policy was a huge success then shouldn't the crime rate be at an all time low.

[bedgeworth4976]

No-it's a waste of time-and tax dollars. Laws should be there to protect the safety and wellbeing of people-not to just irritate people. Some laws make you wonder if we really do live in free country.
Not a success- just another excuse to bully the poor and less fortunate.

[Sarah Oblinger]

I believe if police were to strictly enforce minor problems they would be giving out tickets for anything just to get the city some money. They would also not pay close enough attention to the bigger problems because they would be too focused on the small ones. I believe that the application of broken windows in NY was not a success. I truly think the only way to straighten up crime is to put a harsher punishment on peoples actions. Prisoners now a days have heat, air, hot food, baths once a day, time out side, time with other inmates,tv priviledges and even health care. Yes they can not be treated inhumane but if they pulled their own weight and we stopped building facilities for them, stopped giving them all these luxuries, and making them grow their own food maybe criminals or anyone thinking of doing wrong would think otherwise.