AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott
While reports of violence in Ukraine have dominated the headlines in recent days, American cities are also witnessing horrific acts of violence – not from a foreign army, but from criminals empowered by politicians. . and soft-on-crime Democratic movements like “Defund the Police.” After murder and burglary rates in many major US cities hit all-time highs last year, many city leaders are desperate to quell the violence and unrest, but rather than sweep away progressive visions of “criminal justice reform,” policymakers might be better off looking to successful strategies from the last time crime rose in the United States.
Such a strategy was sketched out in a seemingly innocuous article in Atlantic in March 1982 – 40 years ago this month – entitled “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety”. Unbeknownst to the authors, this article would become one of the most controversial, misunderstood, calamitous, but ultimately successful theories on public safety in recent history. Proponents say it was the theory that saved New York City, while critics say it unfairly targeted millions of economically disadvantaged Americans. Yet almost all of these criticisms are significantly removed from what the authors of the “broken windows” approach to policing actually advocated.
The article was written by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling. Both were academics, but Wilson would later significantly influence public policy. Contrary to popular belief, however, they did not create the “broken window theory” themselves. The theory was first proposed and tested by Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo.
In 1969, Zimbardo placed identical cars on the street, one in high-income Palo Alto and the other in the low-income Bronx, which seemed abandoned. Within a day, the vehicle in the Bronx was vandalized, stripped of parts and destroyed. The vehicle in Palo Alto remained intact for nearly a week until Zimbardo smashed part of it with a hammer. Within a day, the car was destroyed in the same way. He went on to hypothesize that “vandalism can occur anywhere once community barriers – feelings of mutual respect and obligations of civility – are lowered by actions that appear to signal that ‘no one is ‘flee’. is concerned “”.
Wilson and Kelling would later expand on Zimbardo’s work, adding that “disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked in some sort of sequence of development”. When something falls into a state of disrepair and disorder, according to their argument, other objects around that original something quickly follow: “If a window in a building is broken and not repaired, all other windows will be soon broken. It’s important to note that “this is as true in uptown as it is in run-down areas…an unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.”
This situation in turn leads to a general degradation of the community as a whole. As Wilson and Kelling describe it, “A property is abandoned, weeds grow, a window is broken. The adults stop scolding the exuberant children; the children, emboldened, become more rowdy. Families are moving, single adults are moving in. Teenagers gather in front of the convenience store. The merchant asks them to move; They refuse. Fights occur. Waste accumulates. Then, as families abandon an area and residents stop caring, crime sets in.
Liberals past and present have been quick to assert that the “broken windows” theory is an unfair criticism of poor and minority communities. They claim that he portrays all disadvantaged individuals as criminals.
Contrary to this claim, however, Wilson and Kelling do not claim that this venting by itself leads to spikes in violent crime. Rather, crime will take hold because people will lose their connection to each other and to the neighborhood as a whole. Their argument is not that people who already live in a certain area turn to crime once the social fabric breaks down; it is that a “criminal invasion” is more likely to occur in areas where the social fabric has deteriorated.
Importantly and immediately relevant to the situation in many American cities today, Wilson and Kelling offer two basic solutions to these problems. The first is aggressive campaigns for public cleanliness and the upkeep of the city. By keeping communities clean and windows intact, leaders can safeguard the collective health of the community.
The second is a reinvigoration of the “walking beat” cop. The benefit of cops regularly patrolling certain areas is twofold. The first is the well-documented effect they have on the sense of public safety in a community. The more people feel safe to engage with their community, the more people will actually engage with their community, thereby protecting and nurturing the social fabric.
The second benefit is that beat cops are effective in confronting and deterring “low level” criminal activity. While that doesn’t mean cops should stop anyone from loitering, strolling, or skateboarding where they shouldn’t, it does mean cops can “enforce rules about smoking, drinking, disorderly behavior, etc. The need for execution involves nothing more than the deportation of the offender.
When cops are present and visible, they can deter this behavior before it turns into more brazen and violent criminal acts. The authors of “Broken Windows” admit that the highest duty of all police officers is to be “crime fighters” and to “respond to calls”. Yet they argue that it is just as crucial for the police to protect communities: “public drunkenness, street prostitution and pornographic exhibitions can destroy a community faster than any professional burglary team”.
Forty years later, the coronavirus pandemic seems to have confirmed the broken window argument. As a result of government-mandated shutdowns, millions of Americans say they feel “alienated” from their fellow citizens and feel the social fabric of their local communities has completely crumbled. In several cities, homeless encampments have taken over large parts of public squares, parks and even beaches. Many of the city’s district attorneys have pledged not to prosecute crimes they consider “victimless,” including armed robbery, prostitution and drug use. Democratic “open borders” policies also allowed career criminals who crossed the southern border illegally to stay in the United States rather than be deported. Finally, the “Defund the Police” movement has directly led to personnel issues for many police departments. All of these factors have likely contributed to the increase in violent crime currently taking place in American cities.
For Wilson and Kelling, “Broken Windows Law Enforcement” asserts that police, local governments, and local citizens should work to protect communities as much as they work to protect individuals. That, “just as doctors now recognize the importance of promoting health rather than just treating disease, the police – and all of us – must recognize the importance of maintaining intact communities without broken windows.”
After all, it is the people who actually live in crime-ridden communities – not the left-wing activists who occupy them at every turn – who have the most to lose from rampant crime. Rather than implementing woke social policies or cutting police budgets, progressive politicians might be better served by instead focusing on traditional notions of what community means and taking small but vital steps. to make America’s cities cleaner and safer.
Andrew Abbott is the pseudonym of a writer and public affairs consultant with more than a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture.
We hope you enjoyed this article. While you’re here, we have a small favor to ask of you…
Support the AMAC action. Our 501(C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equal opportunity, the sanctity of life and the rule of law.
If you like articles like this – Subscribe to AMAC’s daily newsletter
and download the AMAC News app
Register today Download