Broken Window Theory
Analyse the ‘Broken Window’ theory in relation to crime prevention. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this theory.
The Broken Windows theory was first proposed by two social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in the 1982 article, "Broken Windows", ( Wilson and Kelling, 1982). The analogy of broken windows used to explain this theory is that signs of disorder in a neighborhood inhibit the efforts of the residents to show social control. Any lack of social control makes the neighborhood vulnerable to other anti-social activities such as public drinking and theft. This degradation of the overall morality of the neighborhood, then attracts more unsavoury crimes, such as prostitution and drug dealing, until, eventually, someone is murdered. In summary, the allowance of small disorders eventually lead to larger disorders, which then lead to serious crimes, (Sherman and Eck, 2002).
The Broken Window theory is important as it has many relevant implications for preventing crime. According to the broken window theory, in order to reduce crime in a certain location, you must change its physical and social characteristics. To do this, anything that gives a neighborhood a run-down appearance, should be fixed i.e. roads, buildings, sidewalks etc. What can also improve a neighborhood, according to the theory, an increased enforcement of the law for small infractions. People should be ticketed or arrested for small things like jaywalking, begging and public disorder, (Nolan et al, 2004). The implied logic is that by focusing on small problems, more serious crimes are prevented by police.
This theory has been widely studied and has been shown to be both supported and criticized by researchers. This essay will examine both the strengths and weaknesses of the Broken Windows theory.
The main strength of the Broken Window’s theory is that it has been supported in the real world and in many field experiments. For example, experiments investigating
The Broken Windows theory was first proposed by two social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in the 1982 article, "Broken Windows", ( Wilson and Kelling, 1982). The analogy of broken windows used to explain this theory is that signs of disorder in a neighborhood inhibit the efforts of the residents to show social control. Any lack of social control makes the neighborhood vulnerable to other anti-social activities such as public drinking and theft. This degradation of the overall morality of the neighborhood, then attracts more unsavoury crimes, such as prostitution and drug dealing, until, eventually, someone is murdered. In summary, the allowance of small disorders eventually lead to larger disorders, which then lead to serious crimes, (Sherman and Eck, 2002).
The Broken Window theory is important as it has many relevant implications for preventing crime. According to the broken window theory, in order to reduce crime in a certain location, you must change its physical and social characteristics. To do this, anything that gives a neighborhood a run-down appearance, should be fixed i.e. roads, buildings, sidewalks etc. What can also improve a neighborhood, according to the theory, an increased enforcement of the law for small infractions. People should be ticketed or arrested for small things like jaywalking, begging and public disorder, (Nolan et al, 2004). The implied logic is that by focusing on small problems, more serious crimes are prevented by police.
This theory has been widely studied and has been shown to be both supported and criticized by researchers. This essay will examine both the strengths and weaknesses of the Broken Windows theory.
The main strength of the Broken Window’s theory is that it has been supported in the real world and in many field experiments. For example, experiments investigating
References: 1) Bolda, E., Lowe, J., Maddox, G.,& Patnaik, B. (2005). Community partnerships for older adults: A case study. Families in Society, 86(3), 411e418. 2) Harcourt, B. (1998). Reflecting on the subject: A critique of the social influence conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing New York style. Michigan Law Review 97: 291 – 389. 3) Harcourt ,B E and Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment. University of Chicago Law Review 73: 271-320. 4) Kahan, D.M. (1997) Social Influence, Social Meaning and Deterrence. Virginia Law Review, Vol. 83, No.2. Mar, pp. 349-395. 5) Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York, William Morrow. 6) Messner, S. F., Galea, S., Tardiff, K. J., Tracy, M., Bucciarelli, A., Piper, T. M. and Vlahov, D. (2007). Policing, drugs, and the homicide decline in New York City in the 1990s. Criminology, 45(2), 385–414. 7) Miller, D. W. 2001, Poking Holes in the Theory of 'Broken Windows ' The Chronicle of Higher Education. 47.22 (Feb. 9, 2001) 8) Nolan, J 9) Pitner, R. O., Yu, M and Brown, E. (2012). Making neighborhoods safer: Examining predictors of residents ' concerns about neighborhood safety.(Report) Journal of Environmental Psychology, March, 2012, Vol.32(1), p.43(7) 10) Ramos, J Review of Law & Economics, 2012, Vol.8(3), pp.563-577 11) Sherman, L 12) Torgler, B., Frey, B. & Wilson, C. (2009) Environmental and pro-social norms : evidence on littering. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 9(1), pp. 1-39. 13) Weiss, A., & McGarrell, E. (1996). Unpublished paper, cited in Preventing Crime (University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice). Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs. 14) Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. L.(1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety 15) Wynn, Jennifer R. 2001. Can Zero Tolerance Last? Voices from Inside the Precinct.