Broken Windows Theory

[hammersavage]

I've just been reading some articles on this tonight and found it interesting.

Basically, broken windows theory says that when police crack down on petty, smaller crimes (like disorderly conduct, graffiti, vandalism), its more likely that major crimes will go down.

A major example of this is New York City in the 90's. When Giuliani enforced 'quality of life' reforms, crime fell pretty dramatically.

Some critics say its coincidental and there's no proof that it works. In the book Freakonimcs, its brought up that crime may have dropped in NYC because abortion had been legalized a few years earlier and there were less broken families.

There's also a racist aspect to it, as this type of cracking down is usually done in minority communities.


Any police on here think it effective? I think its a pretty interesting theory and it definitely made a difference in New York in the 90's.

[Bob Impact]

I've just been reading some articles on this tonight and found it interesting.

Basically, broken windows theory says that when police crack down on petty, smaller crimes (like disorderly conduct, graffiti, vandalism), its more likely that major crimes will go down.

A major example of this is New York City in the 90's. When Giuliani enforced 'quality of life' reforms, crime fell pretty dramatically.

Some critics say its coincidental and there's no proof that it works. In the book Freakonimcs, its brought up that crime may have dropped in NYC because abortion had been legalized a few years earlier and there were less broken families.

There's also a racist aspect to it, as this type of cracking down is usually done in minority communities.


Any police on here think it effective? I think its a pretty interesting theory and it definitely made a difference in New York in the 90's.

post hoc ergo propter hoc, correlation does not imply causality, etc. etc... The main criticism of this theory is that it's based on a logical fallacy.

[TooLowBrow]

gulianis back?

[sailor]

post hoc ergo propter hoc, correlation does not imply causality, etc. etc... The main criticism of this theory is that it's based on a logical fallacy.

wouldn't it be the proof is based on a logical fallacy? it would seem the worst you could say about the theory is you can't prove it.

[Bob Impact]

wouldn't it be the proof is based on a logical fallacy? it would seem the worst you could say about the theory is you can't prove it.

In essence yes, but you're really talking Arguments from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam or "Since you can't prove it's false, it must be true").

This also gets into counterfactuals... e.g:
1) Smoking causes cancer.
2) If Bill smokes, he will die of cancer.

Assuming we accept the first statement as a contiguous causal relationship, we can't accept the second statement based on that, because there are many things that could ALSO kill Bill, particularly Daryl Hannah.

The point is that there are an incredible number of variables involved in a society and by extension crime rates. There's certainly a strong correlation between some environmental and economic factors and the crime rate, but that doesn't imply causation. So you can say that it is indeed the proof that's based on the fallacy but it's really the entire idea. By studying things that have not been proven as contiguously causal you're damning the result before you start, as it can never been proven.

Edit: I'm not saying that you should toss out the theory immediately because of this, i'm just pointing out what has traditionally been brought up as a criticism of the broken windows theory.

All that said, there may be something to the theory, I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of it to say one way or the other, I'm just a fool who took his sleeping pills an hour ago and recently re-read Aristotle's Metaphysics. :innocent:

[hanso]

I'm not sure about going along with this. Here is an example of my local police actions not very long ago.
At a time when there was a crime spree of drug store hold ups. The police (BSO) went on a traffic violation kick on the public.
Wouldn't stakeouts/ramped up patrols of the drug stores had been more in order? It was the same brand of stores in most cases. Not only was it the same stores for the most part. It was it the same times as well. Which was not far from the times of the traffic crack downs.

[TripleSkeet]

I think it makes sense simply because most of the people that commit the petty crimes are younger and maybe getting caught and cracked down on when they are young will deter them from continuing down a criminal path.

I mean if a kid is constantly shoplifting and doesnt get caught, I think that kids got alot higher chance of sticking up a store when hes older then a kid that gets caught the first time he shoplifts and has to deal with some harsh punishment. Just from a courage standpoint not getting caught definitely ups the bravery factor.

[TooLowBrow]

I think it makes sense simply because most of the people that commit the petty crimes are younger and maybe getting caught and cracked down on when they are young will deter them from continuing down a criminal path.

I mean if a kid is constantly shoplifting and doesnt get caught, I think that kids got alot higher chance of sticking up a store when hes older then a kid that gets caught the first time he shoplifts and has to deal with some harsh punishment. Just from a courage standpoint not getting caught definitely ups the bravery factor.

harsher punishment for first time offenders and harsher punishment for multiple offenders?

[Furtherman]

In essence yes, but you're really talking Arguments from Ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam or "Since you can't prove it's false, it must be true").

This also gets into counterfactuals... e.g:
1) Smoking causes cancer.
2) If Bill smokes, he will die of cancer.

Assuming we accept the first statement as a contiguous causal relationship, we can't accept the second statement based on that, because there are many things that could ALSO kill Bill, particularly Daryl Hannah.

The point is that there are an incredible number of variables involved in a society and by extension crime rates. There's certainly a strong correlation between some environmental and economic factors and the crime rate, but that doesn't imply causation. So you can say that it is indeed the proof that's based on the fallacy but it's really the entire idea. By studying things that have not been proven as contiguously causal you're damning the result before you start, as it can never been proven.

Edit: I'm not saying that you should toss out the theory immediately because of this, i'm just pointing out what has traditionally been brought up as a criticism of the broken windows theory.

All that said, there may be something to the theory, I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of it to say one way or the other, I'm just a fool who took his sleeping pills an hour ago and recently re-read Aristotle's Metaphysics. :innocent:

I agree with what you've said but it would have been so much cooler if you used Uma Thurman's name.

[underdog]

Is this anything like the Cleaning Windows Theory?

[EddieMoscone]

The big payoff during the Guiliani administration in this regard was the crackdown on fare beating in the subway. I don't have the figures in front of me, but the amount of people busted for fare beating who ended up having open warrants for other, more serious crimes, was astounding.