One step from graffiti to crime: what is the theory of broken windows

The criminological theory of broken windows, developed back in the 1980s, is still a guide to action for many city governors and police officers around the world. We understand what she is about and why she is criticized

Theoretical basis

In 1969, the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a curious experiment: he left two cars in different places: one in the New York criminal Bronx, the other in Palo Alto, California, adjacent to the campus of the prestigious Stanford University. Quite quickly, all valuable parts were taken out of a car parked in a disadvantaged area of ​​​​New York, and the skeleton left from it was chosen by local children as a place to play. A car in a quiet California town remained untouched for a week. Then Zimbardo and his team inflicted visible damage to the intact car. As a result: after a few hours, the car in California differed little from what was parked in the Bronx – it was robbed by very solvent locals.

In 1982, The Atlantic Monthly published an article entitled “Broken Windows”, in which authors James Wilson and George Kelling, building on Zimbardo’s experiment, theorized that condoning petty crimes, such as littering in parks, graffiti on the walls, drunkenness in public places, leads to an increase in the number of crimes, including serious ones. This idea is succinctly shown in the following phrase from the material: “If one window is broken in a building and it is not repaired, then all the other windows will soon be broken.” According to the authors of the theory, damaged glass indicates that society does not pay attention to such acts of vandalism, which means that they can be repeated.

Therefore, in order to reduce the overall level of crime, the authorities need to take tough measures to suppress even minor offenses, that is, to implement the so-called “zero tolerance” policy, so that society itself ultimately considers any deviant behavior unacceptable.

Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands conducted a series of six experiments to prove or disprove a theory put forward by American sociologists. The purpose of the first experiment was to find out if people would litter if there was no trash bin nearby.

To test the theory, a Groningen street was chosen, on which bicycle parking was located next to a clean wall, where a sign banning graffiti hung. The scientists then printed flyers for the fake store and hung them on parked bikes to see what the owners would do with them, while they themselves hid in a secluded place, watching the study participants. The results were as follows: out of 77 cyclists, only 25 (32%) threw flyers on the ground.

Then the experiment was repeated, having previously painted the wall with meaningless drawings, although otherwise the situation remained the same. This time, 53 people out of 77 (69%) littered.

The remaining five experiments by Dutch scientists confirmed the validity of the “broken window” theory.

Practical application

New York in the 1990s can hardly be called the embodiment of the “American dream”: the city had a high crime rate, the streets were dirty, public utilities could not cope with their duties. Elected in 1994, the mayor of the American city, Rudolph Giuliani, proposed a solution – it is necessary to translate the theory of the “broken window” into practice. Since then, he has consistently opposed tolerance for all kinds of crimes, which, according to the mayor, should have improved the criminogenic situation.

As American journalists write, Giuliani’s proposal, on the one hand, caused some smirks, on the other hand, the policy pursued by the mayor united Republicans and Democrats. The first liked the fact that thanks to “zero tolerance” order was restored, while others were attracted by the fact that it prevented a cascade of more serious crimes with relatively humane methods.

“The broken windows theory cannot be seen in isolation from the context of the community policing movement. This ideological and applied paradigm emerged as an alternative to traditional policing in the late 1970s, finally took shape in the 1980s, and dominated the 1990s and 2000s. What is the essence of the “policing-community partnership”? There is the traditional motorized state police, whose officers are dressed in uniform, obey strict protocol and, most importantly, patrol routes. Its actions are by definition reactive: something has happened, a signal has been received about it, the nearest patrol crew arrives at the scene and solves the situation.

In the 1960s and 1970s, this model was heavily criticized. Such a police force was considered off the ground, its reactivity was seen as a struggle with the symptoms, not the disease. In addition, there was a problem of distrust between people living in disadvantaged areas and the police. As a result, residents of such places either did not call the police, or called them only in cases where serious intervention was required. The main premise of such reforms is that we need a more mobile police force that is close to the people and is able to solve their everyday problems,” describes the general background in American society at that time Vladimir Kudryavtsev, criminologist, associate researcher at the EUSP Institute for Law Enforcement Problems, PhD student at Florida State University.

Giuliani and his new police commissioner, William Bratton, responded to an urgent request from citizens for a new format of interaction with the police by first focusing on restoring order in the subway, where about 250 thousand people a day did not pay fares, and the subway itself was full of inscriptions, parts of the rolling stock are broken. To solve the problem, hundreds of policemen were sent to the subway, carefully monitoring the order.

Innovations in the interaction between citizens and the law enforcement system have also become noticeable on the streets of the metropolis: the police have become intolerant of all, even the smallest violations, for example, drawing pictures on walls and unauthorized sale of cigarettes.

And, to the surprise of skeptics, crime began to decline, and the mayor’s popularity, on the contrary, remained at a high level, which allowed him to be re-elected to his post in 1997.

In an analytical review of the impact of police reform in New York, George Kelling and William Souza, mentioned earlier, praise the results of changing the way law enforcement works: “The reduction in violent crime is directly and in large part due to the implementation of the theory of “broken windows”. Thanks to the new policy, over 1989 violent crimes were prevented between 1998 and 60.”

In 2001, Giuliani left his post, but the new city administration of Michael Bloomberg did not abandon the methods of restoring order on the streets of the city of its predecessor, on the contrary, a new practice called “stop and search” appeared. This practice, which is an extension of the broken windows theory, empowered police officers to stop and interrogate passers-by for weapons or illegal substances.

The “broken window” theory remains highly relevant for contemporary political leaders as well. So, in 2019, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo planned to hire an additional 500 police officers as part of the “broken window” policy to monitor public order in the metropolitan metropolitan area. In addition, that year, according to eyewitnesses, there was an increase in the number of cases of harsh police actions against people who violated the rules for using the subway: for example, those who traded on the subway or did not pay the fare. The return to such a policy led to massive protests.

Criticism of the theory and its results

Since the theory proposed by the authors did not just remain on the pages of the journal that published it, but became a tool for achieving a serious social goal – ensuring security in settlements, it attracted increased public attention and provoked a storm of criticism.

For example, The Washington Post columnist Bench Esfield accuses the authors of the “broken window” theory of deliberately misinterpreting the results of Philip Zimbardo’s car experiment in 1969, which became its theoretical basis. According to the researcher, instead of focusing on the problem of social inequality, the authors’ theory leads to racism and violent police behavior, because disorder and delinquency are more common in poor areas where people of color live. The thesis about the increased number of complaints about the actions of the police in the 1990s in New York is confirmed by Harcourt, a law professor at Columbia University.

Other researchers note that the decrease in crime in New York in the 1990s of the last century is not a merit of the “zero tolerance” policy, but a reflection of socio-economic changes in American society for the better: in that era, unemployment decreased and the problem of mass consumption began to weaken hard drugs. Moreover, it was noted that the crime rate in New York began to decline even before the “zero tolerance” policy was launched, and in general, an improvement in the crime situation was observed in most US cities, even in those where it was not carried out.

From the point of view of observers, one should also not underestimate the full range of reforms carried out by the NYPD during the Giuliani mayorship. For example, then the city police received the first computers, which made it possible to accumulate a large amount of information about offenses, and this increased the possibilities for analyzing data on the criminal situation. It is important to emphasize that strict requirements were also imposed on the representatives of law enforcement structures: if the commissioner of the police station could not explain the growth of crime in his area and offer an adequate strategy for solving the problem, he should be removed from his post.

“Problems arise if the area has already experienced serious crime, for example, there is a gang war for territory. In such a case, capturing the homeless, street artists, and sex workers becomes a peripheral story and is unlikely to seriously improve the situation (although there are suggestions that such an intervention may actually help, since it creates conditions under which the law-abiding residents of the area have a reduced tolerance for crimes in principle and increased willingness to cooperate with the police). Therefore, the “broken windows” theory has an ambiguous reputation, its empirical status is not fully defined. Sometimes its practical application yields results, and sometimes not. It seems to depend heavily on the “introductory conditions,” sums up the criminologist.

Urbanist and architect Yelena Pudova agrees that on closer examination, the broken windows theory is not as effective, otherwise garbage disposal and graffiti destruction would be enough to eradicate crime.

“My opinion is that the fight against offenses should be aimed not only at punishment, but also at prevention. If citizens, especially young people, are not given access to libraries, museums, sports sections, then they will find for themselves the affordable entertainment that the street will provide them. Do not marginalize young people – give them the opportunity to express themselves in a safe environment, ”concludes Pudova.

For example, according to the architect, if the city is flooded with graffiti, it will be more efficient to direct the creative energy of street artists in the right direction by organizing an appropriate festival, instead of persecuting them. In addition, it would be useful to more actively involve citizens in the improvement of public spaces, as was the case in the USSR, because in this case, the residents themselves will keep order.

Examples of the implementation of the theory of broken windows in our country

The theory of “broken windows”, the implementation of which involves the introduction of a policy of “zero tolerance” for violations, is a phenomenon not only of American realities: this policy has been carried out in our country in different years to solve certain problems.

“Zero tolerance policy implies the maximum possible punishment for offenses that can cause a “broken windows” effect. This idea is based on political (ideological), rather than criminological (scientific) ideas about crime, and it can be seen in our country as well. “Zero tolerance” can be called the attitude towards the storage of ammunition and drugs in our country in the zero years – one cartridge was enough to initiate a criminal case. Under President Dmitry Medvedev, “zero tolerance” was introduced for drunk drivers in the form of “zero ppm,” Anton Aisin, head of the Citymakers analytical department, cites examples from domestic practice.

At the same time, in his opinion, both in the USA and in our country, the “zero tolerance” policy was criticized for three reasons:

• its implementation requires detailed regulations and openness of the law enforcement system, otherwise the credibility of these activities falls;
• in modern criminal law, punishment is a measure of behavior correction, and not a form of retribution. “Zero tolerance” is a return to archaic practices of objective imputation, when the same punishments were applied to adults, children, people with mental disorders and even natural phenomena – without taking into account their characteristics;
• the connection between “zero tolerance” and “broken windows” is not always clear. Crime has a more complex social nature.