Notes on Broken Windows, Lancaster Crime Summit, and the American Criminal Justice System
Broken Windows theory and Lancaster crime context
Kelly and Coles proposed neighborhood decline and usage of crimes: minor offenses not addressed early can grow into bigger problems.
Broken windows analogy: if low-level issues in a home or neighborhood are ignored (noise, litter, vandalism, poor lighting, etc.), the overall crime problem tends to escalate.
Broken windows theory applied to a city-wide context: addressing low-level crimes helps prevent more violent crime later.
The crime summit aimed to assess current problems and identify changes to implement in the city going forward.
Early observational focus in Lancaster included:
Noise, loud cars, litter, vandalism
Poor lighting in neighborhoods (lighting improvements later in East King Improvement District near the prison and around Mercer Park)
Social science methods used before the crime summit: door-to-door surveys, focus groups, and surveys to gather input from residents in the affected areas.
Lancaster’s status at the time: on the watch list of the most distressed American cities, despite a population of less than 100,000.
Crime summit outcomes and initial recommendations
Aggressive prosecution of crime and disorder; closer collaboration between prosecutors and line enforcement.
Residents to take personal and collective responsibility; crime prevention framed as a community issue, not just a police issue.
Emergence of community policing: assigning officers to specific communities for extended periods to build relationships and understand local problems.
Staffing and funding challenges have limited the ability to sustain aggressive community policing today.
Need for collaboration among stakeholders: public and private institutions, businesses, academics, legal scholars, religious and community leaders.
Formation of task forces and community meetings adjacent to the crime summit to address policy issues and the crime problem.
Broad set of initiatives and recommendations:
Create neighborhood/community policing districts to reallocate and stabilize police personnel in communities.
Increase housing and neighborhood development; encourage investment by banks and businesses in the community.
Improve public perception of law enforcement; study neighborhood perceptions of police responsiveness.
Develop a database and research support for ongoing analysis.
Improve race and cultural relations; promote values and personal responsibility; frame crime as everyone’s problem.
Organize crime-fighting assets to disrupt drug trade; engage faith-based leadership at the ground level.
Secure better funding, execution of solutions, and management of funding and policy investigations.
Embrace change and collaboration as essential; utilize task forces, training, neighborhood/business revitalization, and social services to address root causes of crime.
Structural outputs:
Intergovernmental councils on crime; later evolution into local bodies like the Lancaster Criminal Justice Commission (meeting monthly, typically on the second Wednesday).
Introduction of the 911/311/211 telephone system to handle emergencies and non-emergency social services (dispatch and coordination beyond 911).
Establishment of the Community Safety Coalition (a nonprofit addressing major local problems).
Crime mapping system to identify trouble hotspots and support social services delivery.
Recognition that ~140 organizations attended the summit but many did not know of each other’s existence due to lack of coordination; the need for a single coordinator or centralized administration to reduce funding competition and improve collaboration.
Post-summit organizational changes and ongoing programs
Courts reorganized to address crime more effectively (e.g., specialized drug courts focusing on drug-related offenses).
Expanded training, citizen education programs, and neighborhood watch initiatives.
Continued operation and growth of community policing efforts and cross-sector collaboration.
By developing centralized administration and computerization, Lancaster aimed to improve coordination among many actors and social services in the city.
Current statistics and long-term outcomes in Lancaster
Violent crimes: V = rac{427}{100{,}000} per year (Lancaster today).
Property crimes: P = rac{1463}{100{,}000} per year.
Property crimes rate is about four times lower than the national rate.
Overall crime rate: roughly rac{1.1}{1000} per resident (i.e., about 1.1 crimes per 1,000 residents).
Trend over ~20 years: crime rates have been relatively stable and generally declined from earlier highs.
Lancaster’s ranking: now considered among the safer places to live in the US; described as the sixteenth safest place (relative to national benchmarks).
Context: The broader criminal justice system (course framing)
You will take on a role representing an organization/agency and conduct a class assessment of crime today.
Tasks include identifying problems in the chosen organization/agency, changes that have occurred, and evidence-based expectations for the role you would enter.
The assignment emphasizes research-based assessment rather than doing the initial field investigation; multiple resources are linked in the library guide.
Deliverables include a research proposal (~20% of final grade) exploring crime types relevant to the chosen position, prevalence of crime and social controls, and related challenges.
Students should use library databases and reputable sources; avoid paywalls where possible and verify sponsor legitimacy for web-based resources.
What is criminal justice? (Foundational concepts)
Criminal justice is the application and adjudication of criminal matters within the rule of law; includes multiple components that work together to administer justice.
Core aim: provide a just process for individuals identified by the legal system as violating social norms.
Two facets of justice mentioned:
Substantive justice: ensuring the punishment or outcome is appropriate to the offense.
Procedural justice: ensuring every step in the justice process is proper and error-free.
Criminal justice as a discipline emerged later (roughly mid-20th century) as a formal field of study in the United States.
The U.S. criminal justice system is a triad of law enforcement, courts, and corrections; its purpose includes protecting individual rights and property as defined by law, and safeguarding the rights of the accused under constitutional provisions.
Foundational safeguards are in the Constitution (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments). The ultimate goal is to prevent government overreach and ensure equal justice under the law.
Historical trajectory of criminal justice in the United States
Ancient to classical roots: crimes defined by social taboos, codes like Hammurabi; Athens and Rome had formal laws with class-based punishments.
Magna Carta (historical turning point) and the shift toward limiting the absolute power of the ruler.
Colonial era in America: criminal law based on English common law with variations among the 13 colonies; Puritan (religious) colonies often used biblical laws; Virginia adopted more secular interpretations in some cases.
Post-revolution: desire for personal freedom and legal protections led to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments).
Key amendments and concepts:
Fourth Amendment: protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Fifth Amendment: due process, protection against self-incrimination, grand jury, double jeopardy.
Sixth Amendment: public and speedy trial with due process protections.
Eighth Amendment: protection against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Fourteenth Amendment: due process and equal protection; extends protections to state and local governments.
Due process: a flexible standard ensuring procedures protect against governmental error in deprivation of life, liberty, or property; level of protection scales with the seriousness of the deprivation.
Law enforcement evolution and notable agencies
Law enforcement in the American West involved sparse populations and a lack of state police; US Marshals played key early roles.
Texas Rangers: founded 1823 under Mexican governance; evolved from ranging companies to frontier police, then state police, and finally investigative chiefs under the Texas Department of Public Safety (1935).
Bobbies and Peel: modern police model in the UK (founded 1829/1830s) inspired US practice, but American policing retained broad powers and local autonomy.
Personal recollections of policing evolution (John/Jim-style reminiscence): practices and training evolved from basic procedures to modern standards with extensive training.
Police innovations in the early 20th century (August Vollmer, Berkeley):
Recording systems, MO (modus operandi) systems, first police academy, first motorcycle and automobile patrols.
First criminology school at UC Berkeley; lie detector developments (1920); early use of fingerprints, blood analysis, and other forensic techniques.
Modern technological evolution in forensics and information sharing:
CODIS: Combined DNA Index System
AFIS: Automated Fingerprint Identification System
NIBEN: National Integrated Ballistic Information Network
Today, the United States has:
Over 1{,}000{,}000 full-time law enforcement officers
More than 20{,}000 separate state and local agencies
A large federal presence with agencies like FBI, ATF, DEA, and DHS after 9/11 (as the Department of Homeland Security became the umbrella for many agencies, becoming the largest federal law enforcement entity with roughly 165{,}000 personnel)
Court systems and due process (federal and state structures)
Federal court system:
Three tiers: district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the US Supreme Court.
There are 94 district courts, at least one in each state, plus districts in DC and U.S. territories.
District courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law.
Appeals go to one of 13 circuit courts.
The Supreme Court reviews only a small fraction of petitions; about 1\% are granted review and argued; many denials leave lower-court decisions in place.
State court systems:
Usually four levels: Municipal/justice of the peace courts (minor offenses), state trial courts, appellate courts, and the final court of last resort (e.g., Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals in some states).
Appellate courts do not rehear evidence; they review for legal errors, misinterpretations of statutes, and due process concerns.
Terms used in appellate decisions include: affirm (uphold the lower court), reverse and remand (send back for new trial), and rarely reverse and render (civil context; rarely in criminal cases).
Plea bargaining:
An agreement where a defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a recommended lighter sentence; some jurisdictions formalize plea bargains with DA office guidelines.
Benefits include avoiding costly/trial and potential sentence reductions for the defendant; pros and cons exist for the integrity of the process.
Trial process and sentencing:
If found guilty, a pre-sentence report may be prepared to inform sentencing.
Sentences range from probation to lengthy prison terms, influenced by crime severity and prior history.
Three-strikes or similar laws (e.g., California) increase penalties for certain repeat offenses.
Drug courts:
For certain drug offenses, cases may be diverted to drug courts with treatment-based sentencing, regular monitoring, and frequent court appearances.
Capital punishment:
Ongoing debate about deterrence; studies show mixed or inconclusive results on whether the death penalty deters crime.
The classic functions of corrections (as discussed):
Retribution (punishment deemed deserved)
Deterrence (specific and general)
Incapacitation (removing offender’s ability to commit further crimes)
Reform/rehabilitation (altering attitudes and behavior to prevent future crime)
Note: the speaker mentions these four functions, but also lists reform alongside others, highlighting the ongoing debate about their relative emphasis in policy.
Historical correction systems and prison development
Early punishment and the penitentiary:
In colonial America, punishment evolved from corporal methods toward the idea of penitence (rehabilitation) in prisons, with the aim that inmates would be redeemed after contemplation.
William Penn and the Quakers promoted reforms in Pennsylvania to reduce punitive charges for basic necessities, moving toward more humane treatment.
The Auburn system (New York) promoted silent work in groups during the day and solitary confinement at night; the Pennsylvania system emphasized more solitary confinement and reform concepts but was more expensive.
Frontier and southern models:
The frontier west relied on a mix of local and state-level enforcement; western prisons tended to be smaller and more reform-focused in certain eras.
The Southern prison system was often agrarian, with prison farms continuing into later periods.
The evolution into the modern era:
The early 20th century opened the era of professionalized policing (Volmer) and expanded prison programming during the rehabilitative era.
In the 1980s and 1990s, prison populations surged, leading to a focus on bed space and throughput over programming.
Prison population, capacity, and reform movements (mid-late 20th century to 2000s)
2005 Bureau of Justice Statistics data (DOJ BJS):
Approximately 7{,}000{,}000 people were under some form of correctional supervision.
About 5{,}000{,}000 were on probation or parole; around 2{,}000{,}000 were incarcerated.
Annual cost exceeded 100{,}000{,}000{,}000 (i.e., 100B) in supervision and incarceration combined.
Prison system capacity and prevalence:
The three largest prison systems were federal, plus the big state systems (e.g., California, Texas, Florida, New York).
On 12/31/2005, approximately 1 in every 136 US residents was in prison or jail.
State prisons operated between 1% below and 14% above capacity; federal prisons operated at about 34% above capacity, signaling severe overcrowding in federal facilities.
Parens patriae and juvenile justice:
Juvenile justice is administered separately under the doctrine of parens patriae (in place of the parent).
The juvenile justice system focuses on rehabilitation and uses language such as “taken into custody” rather than “arrested.”
A landmark shift occurred in the 1960s-1970s when the US Supreme Court extended due process rights to juveniles, though the right to jury trial was excluded.
Juvenile offenses include delinquencies (criminal acts reserved for juveniles) and status offenses (conduct illegal due to age, e.g., running away, curfew violations).
Probation is the most common disposition for juveniles; institutionalization is the least common; but over time institutionalization rates increased as some jurisdictions shifted away from rehabilitation toward punishment.
Transfer of juveniles to adult court for serious offenses has become easier in many states, increasing accountability but also raising concerns about developmental differences and long-term outcomes.
Key terminology and ethical considerations highlighted in the lecture
Miranda rights: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney; applied when interrogation shifts from inquisitorial to accusatory phase; rights attach when a person becomes a suspect.
Due process and equal protection: consistent with the Constitution; due process protections vary by case severity and context; the Fourteenth Amendment extends constitutional protections to state/local governments.
The tension between punishment and rehabilitation: historical shifts from rehabilitative eras (paradigms emphasizing education, counseling, and skills training) to more punitive approaches during periods of mass incarceration, and then back toward some reform-oriented practices (drug courts, probation, community-based programs).
Ethics of capital punishment: ongoing debate about deterrence versus retribution and moral considerations; policy implications require balancing justice, fairness, and potential errors.
Macroeconomic and policy implications (real-world relevance)
The Lancaster case demonstrates how a coordinated, data-driven, multi-stakeholder approach can reduce crime and improve quality of life through:
Consistent policing presence in neighborhoods; integrated social services; coordinated funding rather than competition for dollars.
Public-facing improvements (lighting, housing development) and community trust-building with law enforcement.
Use of crime mapping data to target interventions and coordinate services.
Nationally, the evolution of the criminal justice system shows a balance between deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, with policy debates about resource allocation, sentencing guidelines, and the role of racial and social equity.
Practical implications for exam preparation
Be able to explain the broken windows theory, its rationale, and its application to crime prevention strategies.
Summarize the Lancaster Crime Summit’s key recommendations and the subsequent institutional changes, including the rationale for a centralized coordinator and improved information-sharing.
Describe the evolution of law enforcement, including the roles of the Texas Rangers, the Bobbies in the UK, and August Vollmer’s reforms, and how advancements in forensics and information systems transformed policing.
Understand the federal vs. state court structures, key appellate processes (affirm, reverse and remand, reverse and render), and the role of plea bargaining and drug courts.
Recall major historical milestones (e.g., Magna Carta, English common law, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, Ruiz v. Estelle, Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996) and their implications for due process and prisoners’ rights.
Be prepared to discuss juvenile justice under parens patriae, the shift toward or away from rehabilitation, and the implications of transferring juveniles to adult court.
Know the major statistics cited (e.g., crime rates, population under correctional supervision, capacity concerns) and be able to convert them into analytic representations like rac{427}{100{,}000} and similar rates.
Reflect on ethical considerations in criminal justice policy, including fairness, equity, and the balance between public safety and individual rights.
Quick reference numbers (LaTeX-formatted)
Violent crimes rate: V = rac{427}{100{,}000}
Property crimes rate: P = rac{1463}{100{,}000}
Overall crime per resident: C = rac{1.1}{1000}
Population under correctional supervision (2005): 7{,}000{,}000
Under probation/parole (2005): 5{,}000{,}000
Incarcerated (2005): 2{,}000{,}000
Total correctional expenditure (approx.): 100{,}000{,}000{,}000 → 100 ext{B}
Incarcerated residents per population: rac{1}{136}
Federal prisons capacity over: 34 hickspace ext{percent} above capacity
Parole release rate in rehabilitative era: 72 hickspace ext{%}
Parole release rate in 1997: 28 hickspace ext{%}
Juvenile case disposition: probation is most common; institutionalization least common
9/11 and DHS formation influence: federal agencies consolidated into DHS (largest federal law enforcement entity) with about 165{,}000 employees