On July 17, 2014, an unarmed black man, Eric Garner, was suspected of selling untaxed cigarettes by several police officers. Officer Daniel Pantaleo proceeded to put Garner in a chokehold after a struggle started. Garner died in the hands of Office Pantaleo. The reason Garner was even approached in the first place was due to the Broken Windows Policy. A press conference was held by New York’s police commissioner at the time, Bill de Blasio. He was stated saying, “Breaking a law is breaking a law, and it has to be addressed”. The Broken Windows policy was introduced in March of 1982. This policy states that small crimes such as public drunkenness or a littered sidewalk is directly linked to more serious crimes. It was determined that by focusing on these minor crimes, more serious crimes would be less likely to happen (Sneed, 2014).
Michael Brown was also a victim of this policy. On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was only minutes from the convenience store when the officer claimed he was the suspect due to a description of the suspect over his radio. Brown was walking with his friend when was he stopped and the altercation ensued (Sneed, 2014).
Going back almost thirty years, an experiment was held by Philip Zimbardo in 1969 that played a part in this policy as well. Zimbardo left two abandoned cars in two different areas, one in a poor section of New York City and the other in a richer neighborhood in Palo Alto, California. These cars were left without license plates and the hood was left up. In a short amount of time, the car in New York City had already been vandalized by people passing by. As expected, the car in California had remained untouched for almost a week. It wasn’t until Zimbardo smashed the car with a sledgehammer that a passerby came and destroyed the car. This study showed how something neglected can easily become a target for criminals or vandals in this case (Vedantam, 2016). This study became the basis of the Broken Window policy. Criminologists George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson used this idea to shape the policy and stated that these small crimes show that a community is uncared for. If the police could address these minor crimes then bigger crimes would be less likely to occur (Vedantam, 2016).
It was determined with this policy that police should perform more stop and frisks and traffic stops. If police could catch these minor offenders and charge them, then it was thought that more serious crime would not occur, or significantly decrease in a community (Howell, 2016) In June of 2016, New York City’s Department of Investigations analyzed five years of crime data to see how true this policy was. It was determined that there was no direct link between misdemeanor arrest activity and a decrease in felony crime. From the analysis, the Seattle Police Department decided to increase the police presence on a high crime street. It was observed that crime rates and the number of 911 calls from those “hot spots” significantly dropped. The experiment was then implemented in other cities and it was determined that crime can be slightly reduced just by increasing the amount of police patrolling the area (Thompson, 2015).
When going through the Criminal Justice System, we are guaranteed certain human rights to protect us. If law enforcement is given the opportunity to enforce minuscule rules and regulations, this could result in a form of police brutality (“The Problems with ‘Broken Windows’ Policing”). Police officers might feel more inclined to harass people or cross their boundaries to make an arrest. Also, if these arrests are made, the “criminals” being charged with minor crimes might have a hard time getting back into society and this could lead to more crime being committed. When an individual gets out of a correctional facility, it may be hard to get back on their feet. As a result, they result back to crime and rehabilitation isn’t existent at that point. This could also happen to these criminals who are being arrested and charged with such minor crimes (“The Problems with ‘Broken Windows’ Policing”).
On the other hand, this policy could allow individuals to change their bad behavior. When police are looking for those smaller crimes such as public intoxication or vandalism, they are able to stop troublemakers before more serious crimes are committed (Bajak, 2016). This could lead to positive reformation. These minor offenders could get an understanding of the consequences of illegal activity and this might encourage them to change their behavior and make good decisions to stay out of the Criminal Justice System. Another advantage of practicing this policy is the decrease in crime in a community and “hot spots”. When heavy crime street corners and areas are left unchecked, drugs are prominent and violence increases. When applying the stop and frisk method which goes along with this policy, law enforcement can break down those areas and it leads to less crime and makes the community feel safer (Bajak, 2016).
The Broken Window Policy would work well in certain communities were there may be abandoned homes or buildings. When things like this are left unintended, crime could occur since no one is around. Police officers would be able to stop and question these people who are hanging around these areas and decrease that crime that could occur there. Whether it be vandalism or selling drugs, police could enforce this policy and stop individuals from committing those small crimes.
I think with the proper regulation and authority; the broken window policy could really excel in the law enforcement field. Crime is crime no matter the offense or severity but there are certain ways we as a community should handle it. We must work together as a whole with the police department to ensure the safety of our community and people but we have to follow the rules set in place. The Broken Window policy could potentially decrease the crime rate but if we do not handle the arrest procedures correctly, we will fall victim to the system (Fritsch, 2016). This could cause an uproar in the community. Police brutality is something we are dealing with now and the policy is somewhat in fault. In the society we live in today, we must be aware of our faults in the system and work to change them. All these individuals who became victims from the aggressive policing following this policy deserve that. With the right training and the correct amount of regulation, this policy could advance the policing system and be an asset to the communities it serves.
In conclusion, I believe the Broken Window Policy could flourish in certain communities. As we see in multiple cases, the Broken Window Policy can lead to police brutality and even the death of minor offenders. If law enforcement could find a good balance between these two extremes, I think the Broken Window Policy would do well in our society. We should not let crimes go unnoticed but we need to be aware of the consequences and backlash from the community. We should be able to trust our law enforcement and know that they will protect us.