Wilson and Kelling: the Broken Windows Theory and the Policing Strategy - Research Paper Example

1. Introduction The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the explanation of the broken windows thesis postulated by Wilson & Kelling withregard to community policing in the neighbourhood its concurrent role in maintaining order. A central theme in the debate on community policing has focused on the widespread notion that an increase in visible community policing will significantly reduce crime and the cycle of “broken window” disorder (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Indeed the correlation between the symbolic broken window societal malaise and community policing has contributed to numerous US Government driven initiatives to increase on foot policing (Klockers, 1988). Conversely, it has been asserted that “Community policing is an oxymoron, for if the police could serve the whole community then there would be little point in having a police at all with” (Waddington, 1999, at p.223). To this end, Waddington asserts an inherent flaw in the broken windows theoretical ideal regarding the efficacy and true value of community policing. As such, this paper will further review the impact and relevance of the broken windows theory in relation to the development of criminological theorem. 2. Broken Windows Paradigm & Criminological Theory: Key Arguments In essence, the broken window theory symbolises the proposition that if a window is left un-repaired, it will provide the trigger for other windows breaking, creating a correlative domino effect (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). The broken window is effectively a microcosm and representative of disorder through labelling and the disorderly elements multiply once the community behaviour changes (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). They become fearful of groups or leave and therefore the neighbourhood is left open to colonisation by disorderly elements (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). From a criminological perspective, the theory, Wilson and Kelling’s theory seeks to look outside criminological convention in considering causality in crime. The “Broken Windows” paradigm in criminological theory was fuelled by the 1970s New Jersey “Safe and Clean Neighbourhoods Program” drive for foot patrol policing style. Whilst the empirical results of the Police Foundation indicated that the foot patrol project did not actually result in a reduction of crime, Wilson and Kelling felt that the foot patrol project still resulted in safer neighbourhoods on grounds of an overlooked fear of “being bothered by disorderly people. Not violent people, nor, necessarily criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people” (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). To this end, the essence of Wilson & Kelling’s broken windows argument is that foot patrol officers “elevate, to the extent they could, the level of public order in these neighbourhoods”. Moreover, Wilson & Kelling utilise this argument of maintaining order to highlight the differing notions of community fear. For example, they expressly refer to the fact that public order is as important to communities as the fear of “real” crime. To this end, the high presence of foot patrol police officers is symbolically and practical important in maintaining order. Furthermore, Wilson and Kelling argue that the maintenance of order directly correlates to crime “at the community level, disorder and crime are usually inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence.” Wilson & Kelling’s extrapolation of the correlation between community disorder and crime is what underpins their “Broken Windows” paradigm as a justification for the efficacy of on foot policing. Indeed, they expressly assert that “Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left un-repaired all the rest of the windows will soon be broken”. Wilson and Kelling further argue that the maintenance of order is vital to the link between society and crime. They posit that if a community falls within the broken windows archetype, this fuels the “breakdown of community controls”. To this end, it is the societal and breakdown of community order that creates a breeding ground for serious crime. This then creates a vicious cycle leaving vulnerable elderly for whom it is difficult to move away. They further refer to the research of Susan Estrich on public fear, where people cross the road when they see gangs even when crime is not happening in that area. This avoidance in turn leads to “people avoiding one another, weakening controls” when the police intervention is too late and perpetuates societal decay. As such, the urban decay process is prevented by early intervention with order maintenance by visible policing: “The essence of the police role in maintaining order is to reinforce the informal control mechanisms of the community itself”. Since the inception of the police force, maintaining order has been one of the central functions of the police (Emsley, 2002), and from a realist perspective, the broken windows’ thesis postulated by Wilson and Kelling signals a return to foot patrol in local communities and back to basics policing (Emsley, 2002). Accordingly, Wilson and Kelling’s Broken Windows theory proposes the following two central arguments: 1) Socio-legal and criminological theory focuses on affects of crime on the individual and ignores the importance of the impact of crime and the importance of public order on community; and 2) The lack of communal order creates urban community decay, which in turn breeds crime. This therefore justifies increased community on foot policing. 3. Analysis and Discussion At the outset it is submitted that the broken windows theory is inherently limited in solely acknowledging street crime as a source of criminal activity and how disorder and order are defined in this context (McLaughlin, 2002). Moreover, from a social policy perspective, an understanding of the relationship between community and certain types of crime is vital to the “police idea” due to its resultant impact on both criminal justice and policy (McLaughlin, 2003). Moreover, the broken windows thesis is all too ready to accept the state and media defined concepts of crime and means that disorder and crime are viewed as synonymous with the streets (Waddington, 1999). Additionally, the broken windows’ thesis focuses on the cumulative effect of disorder within a community, which is argued to signify the need for back to basics on foot policing. However, such an approach appears to look to a proposed solution without considering causality for the “broken windows”. Therefore under the broken windows thesis, it is the community which appears to define order and disorder. However, Duncan argues that the inherent flaw of this is that if the social or community rules define situations and the behavioural traits appropriate to them, anyone acting or appearing to look as if they are outside those norms will be labelled a criminal and invite police interest (Duncan, (1976) in Wetherell, 2002). However, this clearly lends such policing susceptible to abuses of power through labelling, with a detrimental effect on the very “broken” community the Wilson and Kelling’s ideal of policing is intended to protect. For example, the extensive stop and search powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are often used disproportionately against ethnic minorities. Moreover, in the 1990s, Jefferson and Walker highlighted that in Leeds, men of black origin were more often stopped in white areas, which indicates that community norms will influence police procedures regardless of whether there is actual criminality (Jefferson & Walker, 1992) Moreover, the very nature of police work inherently involves high pressured and stressful situations, which will involve violent scenarios requiring the use of force in a controlled environment. Whilst the police have strict guidelines when using force, it should nevertheless only be used proportionately to achieve a legitimate purpose (Nelson, 2001). However, the contentious issue as to what constitutes “legitimate force” is intrinsically subjective rendering itself highly susceptible to abuse, with numerous case studies and high profile cases exposing shocking incidences of police brutality (Williams & James, 2007). However current research into the causality of police brutality remains inconclusive (Smith, 2008). Recent research into the causal triggers of police brutality has been shaped by polarised theorem, ranging from the psychological “watchman theory”, to the criminological stress strain theory as a key contributory factor to rising police brutality. Alternatively, some criminological models review the socio-economic circumstances of the area in which officers operate as a central factor underpinning causality of police brutality; which is further supported by statistics demonstrating that resisting arrest and drug fuelled crime accounted for the highest proportion of police brutality incidents (Williams & James, 2007). However, it is starkly apparent that there is a distinct lack of studies into the interrelationship between the psychological and criminological propounded models (Smith, 2008), which further undermines the broken windows theory as a contemporary classic in criminological theorem. If the police stress in community policing is linked to abuses of power, this clearly undermines the notion that community policing is vital to alleviating community disorder. Moreover, as stated above this is compounded by the inherent problem that the concept of “legitimate force” has never been precisely defined or limited, which has been used to support the psychological “Watchman” theory (Wilson, 1975). In simple terms, this theory focuses on the role attached to the police officer position. The officers feel that all they do is act as maintainers of order and ignore other problems, which Wilson & Kelling argue is significant in their Broken Windows argument. As such, when police officers are confronted with problems, they feel that they must follow the path of least resistance and render their form of curb-side justice (Wilson, 1975). Whilst police authority is essential to the officer’s role in law enforcement, the problem of resistance and what constitutes excessive force further compounds the issue as to limits of police power (Fitzgerald, 2006). This clearly produces a tension between maintaining order, human rights and police powers and ignores the risk of police abuses of power in practice, which clearly undermines the efficacy of the broken windows theory in practice. Moreover, this arguably turns the broken windows theory on its head and indicates cyclical nature of the theory as when one “enemy” is defeated it is transferred onto a new criminal element (Goldblatt, 1998). . Moreover, in the majority of cases, the police brutality has been directed towards minorities, poor, political dissidents, and members of the counterculture (Smith, 2008), highlighting a pattern of violent behaviour unrelated to any stress or circumstance related resistance (Goldblatt, 1998). To this end, the broken window microcosm is slightly naïve in ignoring complex nature of policing and arguably facilitates police abuses of power by enabling arbitrary decisions to be made based on criminal stereotypes. Indeed, the success of on foot back to basics policing is inherently dependent on the subjective make up of the police, who often seek to define criminality through stereotypical labelling (McLaughlin, 2002). This is further evidenced by psychological studies undertaken by Williams and James into officers who had used excessive force (2007). The information obtained allowed researchers to develop five types of officers, only one of which was similar to the bad apple stereotype. These included personality disorders, previous traumatic job related experience, young inexperienced or macho officers who learn inappropriate patrol systems and officers with personal problems. According to evidence of research studies, young officers in particular often learn the craft from senior officers and from their field training officers (Smith, 2008), perpetuating the entrenched cyclical culture of abuse of power. This further highlights the interrelationship between the Friedrich watchman theory and organisational theory facilitating such “working personality” tendencies in practice, which clearly perpetuates a cycle of inefficient policing further undermining the broken window model as an example of efficient policing in disordered communities. This is further acknowledged in the UK by the negative reaction to the “hoodie” culture, who are police perceived symbols of crime (McGurran, 2005). Indeed, McGurran reported that an Ex metropolitan police chief believed that there should be longer prison sentences for offences committed by hoodies (McGurran, 2005). However, such an approach to community policy facilitates flawed assumptions of disorderly behaviour based on incorrect stereotypes and facilitates police abuse of power. Indeed, Kelling and Wilson recognise the failure of their theory lies in establishing who is actually criminal (1982). Moreover Goldblatt & Lewis argue that increased community policing does not reduce crime rates per se (1998). 4. Conclusion Whilst the broken windows theory clearly has merit in providing a foundation from which to evaluate policing strategy, it is submitted that the inherent flaw of the model is the failure to address causality. Wilson and Kelling focus on a somewhat arbitrary solution to an extremely complex problem. Indeed, Kelling and Wilson’s own acknowledgment that the theory fails to adequately address the determination of criminality arguably turns the theory on its head particularly in light of the evolution of criminological thought. Indeed, Wilson and Kelling assert that the police cannot “without committing extraordinary resources, provide a substitute for that informal control. On the other hand, to reinforce those natural forces the police must accommodate them. And therein lies the problem.” Furthermore, it is submitted that failure to consider causality in the complex backdrop of community disorder, the broken windows model arguably facilitates abuses of power through subjective policing which panders to prejudicial stereotypes. As such, it is submitted that the continuing evolution of criminological theorem should evaluate the interrelationship between causality of crime and disorder within a community and the impact of policing strategy in the area going forward. It is further argued that such an approach would be welcome to the evolution of criminological theorem in this area particularly in light of the growing problem of police brutality, which is intrinsically related to honest policing. To this end, further research should be undertaken into understanding the causes of brutality. Moreover, this is vital as currently there is a severe lack of coordination between the justice system and police organisation in pursuing police brutality cases. The police structure inherently encourages the excessive use of force, which undermines the justice system and the police profession must acknowledge that brutality is a crime and all three professions must work to discourage future acts if community policing is to be truly efficient. Police brutality and the use of excessive force is an occupational crime defined by Friedrich as a “violation of the legal codes in the course of activity in a legitimate occupation” (Friedrich, 1980). Moreover police brutality is a direct violation of internal police force law and regulatory framework. However, this is demonstrated to be a vicious cycle as the very framework protects abuses of power. The police are given a great deal of trust and respectability by virtue of their position and societal status, which is undermined by acts of brutality. As such, Wilson and Kelling’s theory fails to reflect the reality of criminological reality that notwithstanding community disorder, the broken windows are not repaired simply by virtue of community policing. The broader studies clearly raise the question as to whether it is the stress that actually cause abuse of power, or whether police officers themselves are attracted to excessive use of force (Manzoni & Eisner, 2006), which in turn emphasises the need to further consider causality and what constitutes effective community policing. BIBLIOGRAPHY Clarke R. & Hough, M. (1984) in McLaughlin (2002). Key Issues in Police work: Controlling Crime. London Sage Publications. Davis, A. Y. (1998). Race and Criminalisation: Black Americans and the punishment industry, in McLaughlin E, Muncie, J., and Hughes G. (2002, 2nd Edition). Criminology Perspectives: Essential Readings, London Sage Publications in association with Open University Press. Duncan B. L. (1976) in Wetherell, M. (2002) Group Conflict and the social psychology of racism. Identities, Groups and Social Issues. London Sage Publications. Emsely, C. (2002). The Origins and Development of the Police. Controlling Crime, London Sage Publications. Fitzgerald, S. (2006). Police Brutality. Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press Garner, J. H., Buchanan, J., Schade, T., Hepburn, J. (1996). Understanding the use of force by and against the police (National Institute of Justice research in brief series). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Garner, J. H., Maxwell, C. D., & Heraux, C.G. (2002). Characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of force used by the police. Justice Quarterly, 19, 705-746. Goldblatt, P., & Lewis, D., (1998) in McLaughlin E. (2000). Key Issues in Police work. Controlling Crime, London: Sage Publications. Juarez, J.A. (2004). Brotherhood of Corruption. A Cop breaks the Silence on Police Abuse, Brutality and Racial Profiling. Chicago Review Press. Jefferson and Walker (1992) in Croall, H (1998) Race, Ethnicity and Crime. Crime and Society in Britain. Essex, Pearson. Longman. Klockers C.B. (1988) in McLaughlin E (2002). Key Issues in Police Work: Controlling Crime. London Sage Publications Lawrence, R. (2000). The Politics of Force: Media and the Construction of Police Brutality. University of California Press. Manzoni, P. (2003). Violence between the police and the public. Influences of job stress, job satisfaction and burnout on police use of force and victimisation. Zurich, Switzerland. Ruegger. McGurran A. (2001). Hoodies Jail Plea. Daily Mirror. McLaughlin E (2002). Key Issues in Police Work: Controlling Crime. London Sage Publications Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolyntsky, L. (202). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organisation: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 61, 20-52. Quinn, M. (2004). Walking with the Devil: The Police Code of Silence. Quinn and Associates Skolnick, J., & Fyfe, James. (1994). Above the Law Police and the Excessive Use of Force. Free Press Waddington, P. A.J., (1999). In McLaughlin E (2002). Key Issues in Police Work: Controlling Crime. London Sage Publications Williams, K., & James. J (2007). Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America. South End Press. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982) Broken Windows: The police and neighbourhood safety” in McLauglin E, Muncie J., and Hughes G., (2002, 2nd Edition) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings. London Sage Publications. Wilson, J. (1975). The Police and their problems: A Theory. Public Policy, 12. Read More