Policing and Broken Windows Theory

Personal Experience with Law Enforcement

• Date and Time: November 22nd, around 8:30 or 9 o'clock in the morning.

• Incident: The narrator swipes onto the train, holds the door for another gentleman.

• Arrest: Detected by two detectives who approach from either side, leading to both being handcuffed.

  • The narrator is identified as a recidivist with a criminal record.

  • The other individual is released.

Legal Proceedings

• Initial Consultation: Lawyer visits before court; narrator inquires about community service or fines.

• Court Outcome: Presented in front of a judge, sentenced to ten days in jail.

Broken Windows Theory

• Origin: Introduced through an article in The Atlantic by George Kelling and James Q. Wilson (1982).

  • Focus on historical policing methods prioritizing order maintenance over law enforcement.

  • Influenced by social unrest of the 1960s and 70s.

• Implementation in New York: Adopted by Mayor Giuliani, influenced by the Manhattan Institute.

  • Focus on public order instead of reinvestment in communities.

  • Targeted issues include homelessness and street-level drug dealing.

Experience in Detention

• Comparative Sentences: Noted others serving longer sentences for similar minor offenses (jumping turnstiles).

• Perspective: Questioning the effectiveness of repeated arrests for minor infractions.

  • The belief that this approach fails to prevent escalated crimes.

Efficacy of the Theory

• Causation Debate: Limited correlation between order maintenance and serious crime rates.

  • Studies show mixed results regarding the relationship between broken windows policing and crime reduction.

  • Example: Removal of squeegee men improved order in Manhattan without affecting serious crime rates.

Societal Barriers

• Turnstile Access: Viewed as a barrier for those without money, impacting their ability to attend work or appointments.

• Critique of Policing: The narrator labels broken windows policing as flawed due to its negative consequences on low-level offenders.

Consequences of Minor Infractions

• **Collateral Damage: **Low-level arrests can lead to job loss, family issues, fines, and deeper entrenchment into poverty.

  • Reflects a disproportionate impact on the poorest community members.

• Alternative Approaches: Advocates for discretion in law enforcement, suggesting warnings instead of arrests.

Redirecting Resources

• Question of Priorities: Calls into question the investment in arresting individuals for minor violations.

  • Suggesting alternative solutions like reduced fare MetroCards for those in financial need rather than incarceration.

• Comparison to Other Cities: Other cities issue tickets instead of jail for similar offenses; raises concern regarding New York's approach.