CRJ week 7

Introduction to Crime Prevention and Policing Models

• The idea of tackling minor crimes to prevent serious crimes, often referred to as Broken Windows Policing.

• The theory asserts that addressing visible signs of disorder, such as graffiti or broken windows, can deter more serious criminal activity.

• Originated in the late 1990s with the NYPD under the leadership of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton.

Rationale Behind Broken Windows Policing

• Minor Offenses as Deterrent: Proactively addressing minor offenses (vandalism, public drinking, loitering) aimed to create an environment that discourages serious crime.

• The premise: neighborhoods appearing rundown attract crime, as neglect signals the absence of law enforcement.

• By eliminating signs of disorder, a community is believed to feel safer and deter criminal activity.

Implementation of the Strategy

• Zero Tolerance Policy:

  • The NYPD enforced strict prosecution for all minor violations without leniency.

  • Visible signs of neglect (e.g., broken windows, litter, abandoned buildings) were targeted as part of crime prevention efforts.

Outcomes of Broken Windows Policing

• Drop in Crime Rates:

  • Violent crimes such as homicides, robberies, and assaults saw significant reductions.

  • E.g., homicides dropped from over 2,200 in 1990 to around 600 by early 2000s.

• Community perception improved; reports indicated increased feelings of safety, as well as boosted tourism and business investments.

Disproportionate Effects on Minority Communities

• Although crime rates decreased, over-policing of minority neighborhoods, particularly African American ones, emerged as a significant concern.

• Resulted in a problematic relationship between police and communities, leading to feelings of scrutiny and targeting, especially concerning practices like stop and frisk.

• The approach contributed to mass incarceration of young black men and an erosion of community trust in law enforcement.

Consequences and Challenges

• While crime reduction stats looked favorable, the social consequences (heightened arrest rates, loss of community trust) indicated deeper systemic issues.

• Attempts at crime prevention were linked to broader socio-economic and political variables, demonstrating that the model was not singularly responsible for the observed decrease in crime.

Comparison of Policing Models

Traditional Policing

• Reactive Approach: Responds to crime after it occurs without community engagement; focuses on law enforcement and arrest metrics.

• Measures success based on numbers (arrests, response times, solved cases) which does not enhance community trust.

Community Policing

• Proactive Approach: Centers on collaboration with community members to address root causes of crime, such as poverty and social disorganization.

• Officers engage positively with the community, fostering trust and cooperation rather than merely enforcing laws.

• Uses the SARA Model: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment for problem-oriented policing.

• Community officers remain embedded within neighborhoods, allowing them time to cultivate relationships and problem-solve collaboratively with residents.

Importance of Community Policing

• Building Trust: Enhances legitimacy and cooperation between law enforcement and communities, making them partners in maintaining safety rather than adversaries.

• Successful examples, such as officers like Tommy Norman, exemplify effective implementation of community policing.

• Challenges in implementing community policing stem from systemic resistance within police departments and varying degrees of officer commitment.

Conclusion

• The discussion of policing models highlights a critical need for law enforcement to balance crime prevention with community engagement.

• Future policing should ideally focus on building trust and incorporating community voices in crime prevention strategies to ensure long-term safety and improvement in relationships between the police and the communities they serve.