Less than one month after being sworn in as Springfield’s acting top cop, Commissioner William Fitchet announced the formation of a new four-officer Ordinance Squad to issue warnings and citations for violations of city ordinances ranging from playing music too loud to jaywalking to having an unkept lawn. (See “Police hearten blight victims” from April 12, 2008 Republican) Since then, Fitchet and Republican Mayor Domenic Sarno — who had been pushing for the Ordinance Squad since being elected last fall — have been singing the praises of the Ordinance Squad (See Republican articles below the cut).
Sarno, Fitchet and other police officers refer to this new, more forceful gust blowing through the SPD in terms of “quality of life” improvements, “Zero-Tolerance Policing” or “the broken windows theory.”
What is this broken windows theory? According to Officer Mark E. Kenney of the Ordinance Squad, it is the idea that relatively minor problems like a single broken window can infect entire streets and neighborhoods (Republican, “Police hearten blight victims”). This theory, also called Quality of Life Policing, or Zero-Tolerance Policing, is based on the works of criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. The idea is simple: when police take care of (have zero tolerance for) small “quality of life” problems such as public drinking, excessive noise, and, indeed, broken windows, a sense of order is restored to the neighborhood, which will reduce more serious, violent crimes such as murder and rape.
The question is: Does the broken windows theory hold up in practice? Does quality of life policing really reduce violent crime rates? According to various studies, the answer is no, it does not. But quality of life policing does two things: it increases police brutality, police violence and police murder. In addition it targets Blacks and Latinos.
Springfield is not the first city where the broken windows theory of policing has been tested…and failed. The broken windows theory was first put into practice in the 1990s in New York City under NYC Police Commissioner William Bratton and Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. Cities such as New Orleans, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Anaheim and Minneapolis quickly followed suit.
Did crime go down in these cities? Yes, it did. But crime went down everywhere during this time period, including in cities where this aggressive form of policing was not used.
The crimes that did go up were the crimes committed by the most dangerous gangs in town — the police. Baltimore Police Commissioner Thomas Frazier, who oversaw the institution of Zero-Tolerance policing in his city, was at first opposed to this new form of policing, calling it “one iota away from discriminatory policing.” And what was the result of this new quality of life policing in Baltimore in its first six months? Seventy civilians shot by the cops. Similarly, from New York City to New Orleans to Anaheim, complaints of police brutality skyrocketed between 65% and 100%. In its first three years in practice, NYC paid out over $100 million in damages from police brutality. And the targets of the police violence were overwhelmingly Black, Latino, and/or queer.
A 2003 evaluation of the NYPD Zero-Tolerance policing, “Does Quality of Life Policing Widen the Net?” (PDF, 1.5 MB), showed that the targets of these quality of life policing are Blacks and Latinos. Misdemeanor arrests quickly increased by 75% and 90% of all those arrested were Blacks and Latinos.
The broken windows theory is a bogus theory. Quality of Life Policing will not lower serious crime. But it will increase police brutality.
How long will we have to wait for our next victim of police violence in Springfield? How long will it take us to stand up to this new form of draconian policing and realize that it will not solve our problems but only create new ones?
For more information:
See Christian Parenti, Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in Age of Crisis (available for sale from Western Mass Copwatch) Read More »