Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lkrubner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The "broken windows" theory of police enforcement doesn't stand up when compared to other Western cities. A big part of the "broken windows" theory is that small crimes, such as graffiti, created an atmosphere that allowed worse crimes to happen. And yet, if you visit Berlin, you will see a city with a shocking amount of graffiti, but very little crime. If you visit parts of London you'll see run down industrial districts, but very little crime.

Even if you confine your analysis to the USA, the "broken windows" theory of crime does not explain the relative shift in crime towards the suburbs, nor does it explain the increasing epidemic of drugs in rural areas. There is a lot that it does not explain, so it should be treated with suspicion. A theory that only explains one data point is not a theory at all.

Most Western nations have seen decreases in crime during since the late 1980s. The USA had the most crime, and the USA has seen the biggest decrease. No one knows why. New York City has seen the biggest decrease of all the big cities, but figuring out why, given the extremely multi-variate nature of the problem, will be extremely difficult to do. Even those theories that attempt to explain the decline of crime in the USA (aging of the population, Roe vs Wade, unleaded gasoline, change in police tactics) fail to explain why New York City should see the largest decrease in crime, since one can find other cities, for any of those variables, that saw larger changes than New York City.

>The USA had the most crime, and the USA has seen the biggest decrease. No one knows why.

Some have proposed that outlawing leaded gasoline has led to less lead poisoning in children, thus less aggressive behavior in adults and subsequent decreases in crime.

NBER paper - Environmental Policy as Social Policy? The Impact of Childhood Lead Exposure on Crime

[1] - http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf

MotherJones story

[2] - http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li...

Links to criticism of the story above

[3] - http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/lead-and-crime...

> A bit part of the "broken windows" theory is that small crimes, such as graffiti, created an atmosphere that allowed worse crimes to happen.

I've always been confused as to why the broken windows theory presumes that the window is broken because of malicious action. It seems obvious to me that the window was broken accidentally, and as such, the correct response (in police action and otherwise) is to repair the window. Full stop.

> I've always been confused as to why the broken windows theory presumes that the window is broken because of malicious action.

It doesn't.

> It seems obvious to me that the window was broken accidentally

Are you suggesting that no young vandal has ever broken a window on purpose? I assure you, it happens.

> and as such, the correct response (in police action and otherwise) is to repair the window. Full stop.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Has anybody ever seriously argued that the police should punish accidental window breaking? Conversely, if a police officer witnesses somebody throw a rock through a window without cause, should he not stop them?

> It doesn't.

If it doesn't, then why does the theory call for small crimes to be punished?

jerf explains it well above - the theory is that the appearance of disorder begets more disorder. Whether that disorder is deliberately caused by bad actors is significant at the micro scale but somewhat moot at the macro scale.

i.e., a window broken by malicious act is a bad thing, but ultimately an accidentally broken window will also contribute to crime. The notion is that the appearance of disorder signals that such laws are poorly enforced, as well as decreases the level of responsibility and ownership people feel towards the place ("this place sucks already, what's one more...")

Note that I don't endorse this particular view ;)

But punishing small crimes doesn't fix broken windows, so it doesn't actually contribute to the presumed consequence of decreasing disorder.

I mean, let's say that a vandal deliberately broke a window, and this act is witnessed by a police officer. Arresting the vandal doesn't fix the window, so why does the theory call for such an arrest?

As potatolicious stated, part of the proposed mechanism by which broken windows contribute to urban decay is that "the appearance of disorder signals that such laws are poorly enforced". Surely, a police officer ignoring the crime as it is being performed in front of them would send this signal even more strongly.

Also, I should point out that the theory doesn't say that an arrest must be made. Maybe they simply intervene and issue a warning. Maybe you record their identity and create a police record of the incident so that the building owner can sue to defray the cost of replacement. Maybe they take the kid back to his parents, so they can offer replace the window. And yes, maybe you arrest them if they've been repeatedly warned in the past or are causing immense property damage. It's all contextual.

The theory just says that the government (not just law enforcement) shouldn't let the little things slide because they lead to bigger problems down the road. You get the most "bang for your buck" by nipping the little things in the bud. You seem to have a warped idea that it means draconian punishments for every infraction, no matter how minor.

It doesn't necessarily call for an arrest - either in theory or in practice.

For example, during the height of the Broken Windows implementation in New York, transit agencies had a policy of not allowing a vehicle to leave the depot with graffiti on it. It was obviously impossible to catch all vandals in the act, but by cleaning up graffiti as soon as it is found, it sends the message that not only are their acts futile, but that society has no tolerance for this type of behavior.

So to use your example, if you witness a vandal breaking a window, you may fine him, or arrest him if the behavior is particularly repeated or egregious - but in any case you make sure the window gets fixed ASAP such that the appearance of order may be maintained.

You're taking it a little too literally. The theory is that once a situation seems less maintained, people will normalize that state and allow it to decline further.

It's essentially a slippery slope argument, though I do think there's a little bit of psychological truth to the argument. But I also think there's a really high cost for trying to keep things perfect.

The cost is in cultural adaptation, not police work. Singapore has a high standard of public appearance and behavior. It comes at a cost. But they did succeed in creating the social norm. Without that the police effort is endless.

That's what I meant, though maybe with a different spin. The cultural adaptation to a grossly over-aggressive police force is the major cost: fear, oppression, distrust, etc.

As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a ton of experience there to comment. If their standards end up leading the police to proactively treat people like criminals, then I suppose I wouldn't like that very much.

Worth noting that Asian culture in general seems to have much more of a "compromise the individual for the good of the whole" component, though. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a poor fit with our cultural expectations.

The idea of the broken window theory isn't that the window was broken was any particular way. The idea is that the visual image of a broken window serves as a signal that the degree of social concern/cohesion/enforcement in the area is low, and will thus encourage further behaviors. Also, breaking the second window is psychologically easier than the first.

I say this without endorsement, just explanation. (I'm ready to believe the evidence suggests it doesn't actually work and that the real drop in crime was another cause, but, on the other hand, academics can sometimes just be contrarians too, it's not just an online thing, and I still give some credence to successful engineering efforts such that one ought to at least consider the original theory.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com