Broken window Theory
The exemplary crime levels in the society are majorly associated with the disorders, the livelihood of the people, together with the maintenance of the neighborhood. Joel Samah (2006) asserts that minute disorders, unlike serious crime; robbery, felony assault, burglary and theft, never reach the attention of the police force and other law enforcers, thence the negligence of such unobserved criminal behavior always leads to greater disorder that progress to become calamitous sources of insecurity in the society through processes that cannot be easily put into clear speeches. It is in this light that the Broken Windows Theory is modeled; to explain the imagery and the logistics behind the generation and progression of crimes. The pioneering brain behind the Broken Windows Theory is James Wilson and George Kelling (1982) who tried to affirm that criminality based on continuum portrays perceptions concerning the breakdown of social order. Prevention of petty offences and restructuring of the society may enhance the establishment of appropriate policy and create a remarkable change in the police agency.
The broken window theory is a fundamental key in solving criminal issues based on the overarching idea that, literally, broken windows can lead to social crime because of the mutual connection between disorder and crime. Jean (2007) documents that the underlying idea behind the Broken Window Theory is the basic concept of neglect of trifling problem which eventually amount to bigger problems in the neighborhood, preferably hot spots. Furthermore, he suggests that the link between disorder and crime is more conspicuous in relation to the offenders as offenders always tend to allegorize disorder as an ideology that the society is under no supervision and crimes can be committed willingly. Peter jean (2007), further categorizes disorder into two broad categories. First is the physical disorder which emanates from the poor physical conditions of the environment; the status of the buildings, properties around the buildings and the vacant structures. In conjunction to this, he illustrates that when a smashed window in a building is not repaired, then in a short time, all the rest of the windows will be broken. The other category is a social disorder, which emphasizes on the antisocial behavior, aberrant activities and poor interaction of people living in the society. The common behaviors associated with social disorder include the presence of drunkards, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, mentally retarded and panhandlers. Though they appear to be less violent, they create room for more disorder as they are depicted to be the first broken windows, Jean (2007).
According to Samah (2006), systematic observation of public spaces has created a compelling avenue to a better understanding of the origin and consequences of public disorder. He explains that a stable neighborhood can exhibit a traverse change in a short time as depicted when offenders commit a crime with minimal expectations of being arrested; hence cause a lot of disorder. Consequently, a chain of events supervenes the neighborhood; disorder accumulates and the law abiders then perceive that the crime is on the rise, thereby becoming more skeptical. In turn, the law abiders refrain from the neighborhood and the utility of public space. This results to the commencement of dissertation of buildings. After a short while the weeds grow up, and the buildings are destroyed, losing their aesthetic value, as more garbage is accumulated in the streets. In the mean time, families move out, deserting the place and more buildings become shuttered and destroyed. The unattached adults move in to occupy the vacant places in these areas and since they are socially and emotionally neglected they engage in serious crime. With no enforcers and people to care, they engage in more crime and create more insecurity, (Jean 2007).
Despite the convincing idea that the theory can explain the genesis of most crimes and help solve them, it has faced radical critics and most theorists have disputed it. In 1969, a psychologist by the name Philip Zimbardo, designed an experiment to study the credibility of the theory. The experiment involved placement of two identical cars with no license plate in two cities; Bronx and Palo Alto, in California. The car in Bronx was attacked by people within the ten minutes of its abandonment. The first to vandalize the car was a family; a father, a mother and a young son, who removed the radiator and the battery. In 24 hours time, everything valuable in the vehicle had been removed. The vehicle was destroyed, and the children were using it as a playing ground. Conversely, the car at Palo Alto was not distorted, and it remained whole for over a week. This implied that the community in Palo Alto reinforces the safeguarding of private property and affirm to the ideology that breaking the law is unethical. Regardless of the knowledge that vandalism is an offence punishable by law, the community in the Bronx has a reputation of common disorders like vandalism pegged on their experience; hence the society is aware of lack of punishment, since no one cares. In relation to this, Jean (2007) approves that the presence of unpleasant neighborhood, motivate offenders to commit a crime with little expectations of getting arrested.
With regards to Jean (2007), neighborhood disorder, when suppressed, can prevent serious criminal invasions. In accordance to this, the broken windows theory can help achieve, a good shift in police focus, in that minor crimes such as panhandling, graffiti and loitering can be taken into consideration and corrected before substantial outcrop of serious crimes. The neighborhood can also be transformed to a crime free place. For instance, the disorder correction and restoration of pleasant neighborhood, frame work known as zero tolerance, used in New York in 1990s by mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police commissioner William Bratton, significantly helped in crime reduction. However, during the period, most of the crime rates reduced and the reason was based on the economic boom of the country. Similarly, Harcourt (2001) argues that the use of the broken window policy will not reduce the crime rates and are likely to cause no effect on the police agency. He adds that research is extremely pertinent to prevent different interpretation of disorder by a different set of people. The methodical of broken window policy may be an illusion of order; hence the police effort to enforce law and order in the distorted streets may not concur with the theory of broken Windows.
In a nut shell, the theory of broken windows presents magnificent mechanism of reduction of crime levels in the society, in spite of the initial harsh reception from few theorists. Its interpretation of neighborhood disorder, supported by the presence of trash, graffiti, panhandlers and other visible signs, explains the principal cause of minor crimes in the society. It is also evident that such disorders create a lot of fear on law enforcers resulting to withdrawal and dissertation of public places. This eminently amounts to generation of negative perception about the law and violation of moral ethics, which is highly achieved by the frequent breaking of the law. However, applause of moral behavior and rectification of trivial offences can prevent the escalation of criminal offences. To top it off, the application of the broken window policy can assist in the achievement of social control in which the residents of the neighborhood initiate the control of the society, and they intervene to prevent social disorder like truancy, drinking, vandalism among others.
Reference
Harcourt, B. E. (2001). Illusion of order: the false promise of broken windows policing.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Jean, P. K. B. St. (2007). Pockets of crime: broken windows, collective efficacy, and the
criminal point of view. Chicago: university press of Chicago.
Samaha, J. (2006). Criminal Justice. Belmont: Thompson learning Inc.
