1. Hailley Hendrickson
October 22, 2015
Broken Windows Policing
The theory behind broken windows policing is, generally agreed upon by Psychologists
and law enforcement, that if one window of a building is left broken and unrepaired soon the of
the windows will follow. The idea being that if one crime goes unpunished in a neighborhood, so
then many more will follow, usually spread out over several years, and the neighborhood goes
bad. There have been certain policies enacted that place more officers in several cities. But over
the last few years there’s been some debate as to whether or not this actually works.
The men behind the theory are Drs. James Q. Wilson and George R. Kelling, both of
whom introduced the idea that in terms of communities “disorder and crime are inextricably
linked” meaning, that in any sort of neighborhood, a crime that goes unpunished leads often
leads to a skyrocketing of similar behaviors, which eventually gets worse. The broken window is
used as a symbol for unaccountability, where there is order there is peace, which brings to the
table the argument that “putting boots instead of cars on the ground” doesn’t actually work. This
argument states that it does not in fact lower crime level because often times, criminals get
“smart” and learn when to attack and when to lie low. Eric Garner, is proof of this. Broken
Windows Policing leaves ample room for racism in policing methods. Any innocent colored
individual is unfortunately seen as a criminal simply because of what is going on around the
community, and, because of this method, accountability standards become increasingly lower.
When 43-year-old Eric Garner was brutally murdered by the police for a misunderstanding, the
courts did nothing in his defense and the officer, Daniel Pantaleo, was released free of all

2. charges. The problem with broken windows policing is that it provides a shield that calls itself
“reasonable suspicion”, when in fact, it can be used as a weapon against law abiding citizens,
such as Garner, who was murdered under suspicion of selling loosies or untaxed cigarettes. They
had no proof whatsoever and declined to actually speak to Garner. The problem here was that
Garner had mentioned that he had been harassed before.
The intention of the broken windows policing method is simple; Prevent larger scale
crimes by stopping smaller ones. The entire plan was completely thought out, however in cases
like Eric Garner, we can see how quickly this plan became corrupted by racism and the idea of
ethnocentrism, a belief that one’s own culture is better than another’s, and it wasn’t too long
before it was realized how little some officers actually care about a person, especially if given
the power they have that was set in motion by this method. Many officers quickly turn to the
excuse that they are looking out for the greater good, when in fact it’s seen as aggressively
harassing innocent people in high poverty, low income neighborhoods. However, there are, in
fact, two sides to the story. On the other end, as seen in the case of the Robert Taylor Homes, it
was because of the few rogue officers, that many caring and devoted officers see a lot of
unnecessary violence and aggression towards them. They often find themselves out on patrol
wondering if that is their last day. It is also because of cases like Eric Garners, that the mass
public views all police as militarized watchmen looking to justify killing someone. It’s not
difficult to see how broken windows policing has undoubtedly forever changed the link between
the sworn protectors of the community and the community itself, and because of the fear of the
other, it has sparked a type of civil war between the idea of what is good and what is pure evil,
where no one knows what the actual definitions of either is and each have their own outlook on
both. The cruel reality is that broken windows policing does not make anything better, but

3. instead has, over time, made things worse. The War on Race was an inevitable outcome because
most officers were white, and a lot of the problem was violence and degradation of the black
community. To be fair, it is not just an issue of the one side but of both, there is a common
misunderstanding of what the purpose is and there is a general lack of morals and values that can
be found in both sides.
The real question is, “can it ever truly, and by both sides, be seen as a legitimate method
of policing?” In my opinion, yes and no. Hypothetically, it can be seen as effective if both sides
are willing to work with one another. The idea, initially, was that both sides were working side
by side to see a good end result, however it has turned into an all out war between both sides
because the few who hate cops and the few who hate the entire black race have a not so great
outlook on each other. I do believe that if certain members of each community would stop and
realize the potential in working together yes it would work, but that, no thanks to our corrupt
media interpretation of things, is overly optimistic. It is because mass media decides to share
certain stories a certain way that a lot of the current problems exist. Because an unarmed
teenager was shot as he was fleeing a scene where he knew he had been caught shoplifting was
taken as a race issue, simple because the media didn’t necessarily say he had been caught
shoplifting. Only that he was an unarmed black teenager, and then they bring the boy’s mother
on air and she tells you that it was police brutality and racism. It was only after it was confirmed
that he had been shoplifting that the media decided to say something. This widened the rift that is
the relationship between the police and the community, and made broken windows policing even
less credible.
As harsh of a reality as it is, broken windows policing has never worked but it also
experienced a rapid decline over the years. It looked great on the drawing board, but as soon as it

4. was brought to the attention of several police chiefs it was made clear that perhaps it should stay
on the drawing board. Ever since it was enacted, broken windows policing has paved the way for
not only unaccountability in situations of police brutality but also violence against not only the
police officers but now it has been made clear that the entire white population in America is to
blame for racism. As time goes on the war between the races goes on, and there is no doubt that
in many ways broken windows policing has jumpstarted that war by inviting a type of power or
sense of power that should never have been given to the police, and that would be the “shield of
reasonable suspicion”, which is still widely regarded as invalid. In many cases, reasonable
suspicion comes with a little detective work, in the case of broken windows policing it has
become, a type of “shoot first, ask questions later” scenario, where in many cases that is exactly
what happens, and often times the officer responsible for the shooting or killing of the innocent
still feels justified because he knows that all he has to say is “I was afraid for my life” even when
no real and honest threat to his life had been made. Broken Windows Policing, in many ways has
created a sort of legal shield for the corrupt, and power hungry.
So to answer the question, “does it work?”, there has been no real and honest mass media
evidence of it working, however there are the unheard stories, the truly good ones that the media
doesn’t bother to tell you. In many of these stories, officers prevent bigger crimes from
happening simply by getting involved with the community and its youth. They become
something of a mentor to kids and seek ways to motivate them to aim for higher expectations, go
to school, get a job, go to college, get out of a bad neighborhood or situation. It’s rather difficult
to take a side in this issue, because if I went with the media stories and the force-fed lies, I’d say
no. However, if I went with the small stories of police doing the right thing as seen by the
community and actually helping a high poverty neighborhood to thrive, I’d undoubtedly say, yes.

5. The problem lies with how it’s portrayed, most often times, however the examples of this
method come from big city with a rather high population of young rich millenials who believe
they can do what they want and they won’t get in trouble for it, in which case order-maintenance
becomes a real issue. Usually, they are proven wrong and but it’s the method behind how they
are proven wrong and the severity of the physical force that spark the great controversy over the
method. In a few cases, extreme physical force can be necessary, however, in the majority of the
cases, brutally beating a kid for not complying does not help the situation or teach the kid he was
wrong, it either kills him or makes him more defiant. Broken Windows Policing was meant as a
way to protect the individuals in small, low income cities, and its because of it’s use on the
wrong people, it’s become more violent and less credible. Perhaps at some level we can find a
way to fix the corrupted system, but even that seems optimistic, because broken windows
policing was misused and continues to be an abuse of power. I believe that if there was a less
violent method of spreading awareness of the intent, it would work.
In our present day, broken windows policing doesn’t work, because it has been brought to
an area where it isn’t necessary, and it has inevitably drawn focus away from the real problems
that society has, such as providing care for the less fortunate in the projects and low income
areas. It has been proven by many people, such as Wilson and Kelling, however, that police
accountability is necessary and some level of positive police interaction is crucial in every city,
less in some and more in others, depending on the location. Broken Windows Policing was
originally enacted to make communities safer, and as time goes on we will see if things improve
or continue to backslide.