As violent crimes keep rising inexorably, maybe it is time we harken to an idea proposed by James Q Wilson, the long-time Harvard political scientist. He was best known for his work in crime fighting that should be of interest to every Guyanese. The article, Broken Windows, which he actually co-authored, took a contrarian position when it came out in 1982. Up to then, everyone focused on the “root causes” of crime that had to be attacked. Crime would not go down, it was said, and said repeatedly, until we first address the social and environmental causes like poverty, racism, bad housing, poor education, inequality, etc.
Not surprisingly, the Police loved the idea: basically, it absolved them from ever reducing crime in absolute terms. Their stock answer to the stubborn, high and growing crime figures was: “it’s society’s fault; society messed them up.” In Guyana, there is a persistent section of officialdom that insists on pushing the “root causes” theory of crime reduction. We hope that they will take a look at Wilson’s “broken windows” alternative.
The broken windows theory derived both its inspiration and its name from a widely-observed phenomenon. “Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree,” Wilson and Kelling wrote, “that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighbourhoods as in rundown ones.
Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale, because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing. (It has always been fun.)” What’s true of windows, Kelling and Wilson argued, was also true more generally of “untended” behaviour in a community. Wilson was saying that culture matters.
A stable neighbourhood of families who care for their homes, mind each other’s children, and confidently frown on unwanted intruders can change, in a few years or even a few months, to an inhospitable and frightening jungle. A piece of property is abandoned, weeds grow up, a window is smashed. Adults stop scolding rowdy children; the children, emboldened, become more rowdy. Families move out, unattached adults move in. Teenagers gather in front of the corner store. The merchant asks them to move; they refuse. Fights occur. Litter accumulates. People start drinking in public; in time, an inebriate slumps to the ground and is allowed to sleep it off. Pedestrians are approached by panhandlers.
At this point, it is not inevitable that serious crime will flourish or violent attacks on strangers will occur. But many residents will think that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise, and they will modify their behaviour accordingly. They will use the streets less often, and when on the streets will stay apart from their fellows, moving with averted eyes, silent lips, and hurried steps. “Don’t get involved.”
For some residents, this growing atomisation will matter little, because the neighbourhood is not their “home”, but “the place where they live”. But it will matter greatly to other people; for them, the neighbourhood will cease to exist except for a few reliable friends whom they arrange to meet. Such an area is vulnerable to criminal invasion.
In essence, Kelling and Wilson were arguing that minor crimes, if unpunished, led to major crimes and massive social breakdown. The goal of “Broken Windows policing” is to allow a neighbourhood to police itself and reduce crime. The role of Police is to reduce fear through foot patrol, maintaining order, and the judicious use of officers’ discretion. In so doing, they would only be responding to the previously unacknowledged demand in poor communities for the same sense of lawfulness enjoyed in wealthy areas.
While our “community policing’ and “neighbourhood police’ initiatives have adopted their names from “Broken Windows” policing, they have entirely missed the latter’s essence.
