Broken Window Theory

When comparing the two most common methods of contemporary police department strategies, community policing and the broken windows theory, it is easier to show their differences rather than their similarities. The most obvious difference being that broken windows deals with conditions not people, whereas community policing depends strongly on the citizens to be an effective tool. The broken windows theory states that it is easier to solve a small problem before it becomes a big problem. “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…” (George L. Kelling). The second part of the theory is that by repairing the broken window, further petty crime will be deterred thus as a result a major crime will be prevented. The claim that this theory actually prevents major crimes is what has been criticized the most harshly. University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt is among those and states “There’s no good evidence that disorder causes crime [or] that broken windows policing reduces serious crime in a neighborhood” (Boston Globe 2/19/06). Harcourt feels it was the crack epidemic of the 80’s and 90’s that influenced the rise and fall of crime rates. Because of the tremendous amount of money being made in the beginning of the crack surge, it was worth the fight for turf resulting in higher crime, but as it became more available dealers thought twice about the risk for less profit. Other criticisms of the theory involve everything from the legalization of abortion in the 70’s (the feeling being with less unwanted males in society there were fewer potential criminals in the 80’s and 90’s) to simply stating “Newton’s Law of Crime: what goes up must come down” (Boston Globe 2/19/06). Community policing on the other hand, focuses on crime and social disorder by implementing police services that include traditional law enforcement,