This produces a tension between maintaining order, human rights and police powers. For example foot patrol officers ‘stop and search’ powers are used under the loose concept of ‘reasonable suspicion’ which is open to misinterpretation, misuse and individual bias. These powers have been predominantly used against ethnic minority groups and the underclass. In America an experiment about stereotyping Duncan (1976) showed how the behaviour of black men is viewed as ‘violent’ while the same behaviour in whites would be interpreted as ‘fooling around’, with participants not even aware of their bias. The Sentencing Project also points out that black people are 7.8 times more likely than whites to be imprisoned (Davis 1998). In New York a ‘zero tolerance’ drive, highlights the extent of police racism. Four men were acquitted of the murder of Amadou Diallo a West African immigrant, he was fired at 41 times, even though he was unarmed (Black Radical Congress 2000). Davis (1998) points out that in attempting to eliminate crime, the people who are pinpointed are the people to who criminal acts will be contributed and this ‘enemy’ is predominantly seen as coloured. In this way police powers are used against minorities groups who are perceived to be the ‘enemy’. This bias towards racialized groups has been recognised in the political arena in some countries.
In Britain prejudice against ethnic minorities has been taken very seriously since such high profile racist incidence as the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Police forces were seen as failing in their duty of maintaining order, by not taking incidents of racism seriously. Since the police force was forced to acknowledged ‘institutional racism’, this has lead to new order maintenance legislation issued by the home office that now require that every instance of racism be investigated fully (McLaughlin 2001). This does not mean that the ‘enemy’ on the street is gone it has merely been transferred onto a new ‘criminal’ element. When one ‘enemy’ is ‘defeated’ there is always a new one labelled to take its place, these are often highlighted with the help of the media.
In Britain there is a new recognisable criminal group, they wear hoods. An article in the Daily Star newspaper explains how a man was minding his own business and these ‘hoody thugs’ attacked him without provocation (Malley 2005), while the daily mirror shares the opinion of the Ex-Metropolitan Police chief who believes ‘hoodies’ should receive longer prison sentences (McGurran 2005). There is an assumption that disorderly behaviour and therefore criminal elements are easily recognisable and by removing these elements the problem will be eliminated. Kelling and Wilson even recognize the failures in establishing who is criminal. They point out that when people on a housing estate were asked where the dangerous places were they identified where young ones gather and play music, even though this was not an area of crime. This puts the thesis on shaky ground, they claim that if you sort out the disorderly elements this will stop it escalating into further criminal action. However if the people pinpointed as disorderly are not committing or causing criminal acts how does stopping and harassing them prevent further criminal acts, it could surely produce the opposite effect in that they feel oppressed. Instead it is labelling people as disorderly and therefore criminal for what they look like and what they wear. This also illustrates that the thesis is one sided as it looks at the feelings and thoughts of the ‘victims’ but fails to take account of the feelings of those who are actually labelled as criminal.
The assumption to the thesis is that a police presence should reduce crime rates. However despite considering that the people they target may not be criminals and because they only look at crime that is visible, these in part could explain why foot patrols fails to combat crime, there are however other points to consider. For example in Britain Clarke & Hough (1984) point out that a patrolling policeman in London could expect to pass within 100 yards of a burglary only once every eight years. Goldblatt & Lewis (1998) point out that even increasing police numbers would not necessarily reduce crime and would not be financially viable. They also ignore the possible social causes of crime. Klockars (1988) suggests that the police cannot win war on crime as some things are just not within their power to change, such as unemployment, civil liberties the age distribution of the population moral education etc. Therefore many have disregarded foot patrol as an ineffective form of policing.
Also despite the claimed ‘maximum deterrence’ effect of the NYPD’s ‘zero tolerance’ version of broken windows, the result had little effect on crime rates as they were already falling (McLaughlin 2003). This does highlight a dichotomy within the thesis. For example using a deterrent would indicate crime as choice, however criminal ‘types’ are also highlighted and this indicates a biological predeterminent. In other words what would be the point of trying to deter criminals if criminal behaviour is the result of predetermined behaviour and not choice. There would be no point to foot patrols because a police presence would not deter disorderly or criminal behaviour.
Interestingly Wilson and Kelling acknowledge themselves the failure to reduce crime rates. However they do point out that foot patrols have positive effects, such as making the community feel safer. This factor however is often overlooked because of issues of police accountability. Reducing crime figures is viewed as more important as they are a tangible representation and they are a political tool. At the most recent election in May 2005 reducing crime figures was mentioned by both major political parties. Goldblatt & Lewis (1998) claim that the ‘constables on the beat is little more than an expensive public relations exercise’. Wilson and Kelling argue that foot patrols as opposed to car patrols allows for a community and police relationship in which information regarding community activity would otherwise be unavailable. Sherman (1983) agrees with this position by stating that police officers in cars see familiar buildings and unfamiliar people, while the public sees familiar cars and unfamiliar police officers. There is little chance for the public to talk to officers in cars whereas foot patrol allows police to know who is possibly dealing drugs, or which children are causing a nuisance. Wilson and Kelling also suggest that foot patrol gives community members the opportunity to talk to police without being viewed as a snitch. This makes for good relations between community and police, many also point to how much safer they feel with a police presence. However is it difficult to gauge how much relevant information police may attain from foot patrols and the accuracy of this information, I am sure not everyone tells the police the truth or they may be mistaken. For example as mentioned earlier when residents were asked about the criminal areas they pinpointed where young ones tended to congregate even though this was not an area of crime.
Waddington (1991, 1999a) suggests that the police are need to maintain a democratic social order. However there are alternatives to community policing for example police forces have worked in conjunction with neighbourhoods producing ‘neighbourhood watch’, this is the idea of the public keeping an eye on community activity and reporting anything out of the ordinary to the police. Going further than this are the American groups of ‘Guardian Angels, rather than observe they are actively involved in maintaining order in the streets and they do this without weapons. This group even started a chapter in London 10 years ago to protect the vulnerable in the underground and tube stations. It seems therefore that other groups are able to provide the order maintenance role of the police. However the extent to which these groups can provide order maintenance has not been established due to lack of research into the effects of these groups.
To summarise, the broken windows thesis sees crime and its causes as the result of disorderly street conduct, thus failing to acknowledge crime in other forms. It also points out that those labelled as ‘criminal’ are not necessarily criminals. They are more likely to be those who appear different and those highlighted by the media. There also appears to be a never ending cycle of those labelled as criminals and there is a failure to take note of any social influences. In addition the prejudice that results from labelling can have devastating consequences. All of these reasons coupled with the point that the police are unlikely to catch a person in the act means that a police presence in the form of foot patrol is unlikely to have an effect on street crime rates. However it does seem to have a positive effect on those in the community fearful of crime. Although due to police accountability and political pressures this is not seen as important or cost effective.
In conclusion, I don’t think that the core function of the police should be to maintain order as it has little effect on crime rates and they tend to target those who ‘looks’ like criminals, also by using foot patrols and concentrating on street crime means other areas of crime would to be overlooked. However I do think that the police role in maintaining community relationships does have merit, as they could be used in an advisory capacity and this way police could continue monitoring crime and fear levels within the community.
Word Count 2002
References
Becker H. (1963) ‘Outsiders’ , in McLaughlin E., Muncie J., and Hughes G. (2002, 2nd edn) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London, Sage Publications in association with Open University Press.
Black Radical Congress (2000) Accessed at
http://www.blackradicalcongress.org/comm./press/release022800.html
Accessed on (09/06/05)
Clarke R. & Hough M. (1984) in McLaughlin E. (2002) ‘Key Issues in Policework’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Davis, A. Y. (1998) ‘Race and criminalization: Black Americans and the punishment Industry, in McLaughlin E., Muncie J., and Hughes G. (2002, 2nd edn) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London, Sage Publications in association with Open University Press.
Duncan B. L. (1976) in Wetherell M. (2002) ‘Group conflict and the social psychology of racism’, Identities, Groups and Social Issues, London, Sage Publications.
Emsley C. (2002) ‘The Origins and Development of the Police’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Goldblatt, P. Lewis, C. (1998) in McLaughlin E. (2002) ‘Key Issues in Policework’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Guardian Angels accessed at www.guardianangels.org/ (Accessed on 09/06/05)
Jefferson and Walker (1992) in Croall, H (1998) ‘Race, Ethnicity and Crime’, Crime and Society in Britian, Essex, Pearson, Longman.
Klockers C. B. (1988) in McLaughlin E. (2002) ‘Key Issues in Policework’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Malley P. (27th May 2005) ‘I got this for walking past hoody thugs’, Daily Star.
McGurran A. (23rd May 2005) ‘Hoodies Jail Plea’, Daily Mirror.
McLaughlin E. (2001) ‘Policing Hate’ (Video), Open University.
McLaughlin E. (2002) ‘Key Issues in Policework’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (2003) The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, London, Sage Publications
Reith C. (1938) ‘The Police Idea’, in Emsley C. (2002) ‘The Origins and Development of the Police’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Sherman L. (1983) in McLaughlin E. (2002) ‘Key Issues in Policework’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Waddington P. A. J. (1991, 1999a) in McLaughlin E. (2002) ‘Key Issues in Policework’, Controlling Crime, London, Sage Publications.
Wilson J. Q. Kelling G. L. (1982) ‘Broken windows: The police and neighbourhood safety’, in McLaughlin E., Muncie J., and Hughes G. (2002, 2nd edn) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings, London, Sage Publications in association with Open University Press.