While in law school, I had the privilege of working as an extern for the New York Police Department’s, Civil Enforcement Unit, assisting them in the prosecution of nuisance abatement crimes. Based on theories premised in a March, 1982, article published in The Atlantic by coauthor’s, Mr. George Kelling and Mr. James Wilson, the City of New York can now claim that it is the “safest” metropolitan city in the United States, according to FBI statistics. Mssrs. Kelling and Wilson entitled their thesis “Broken Windows.”
The Broken Windows Theory, as it has become known, is a relatively simple concept – If a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will so be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in run-down ones. Leaving a broken window unrepaired signals to society that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing. If a community ignores petty crime (i.e. graffiti, litter, shattered glass), then an atmosphere of irreversible decline leads people to abandon their community or to stay away.
Many citizens are primarily frightened by crime, especially crime involving a sudden violent attack by a stranger. However, citizens are equally frightened by being bothered by disorderly people. A community is made up of “regulars” and “strangers.” Regulars include both “decent folks” and some drunks and derelicts who were always there, but who know their place. Strangers are just that, and viewed suspiciously and sometimes apprehensively. A set of “informal” rules are defined within the community. These rules were defined and enforced in collaboration with the “regulars” on the street. Another neighborhood might have different rules, but “these rules,” everybody understood were the rules for this neighborhood. If a person broke these formal rules, they were arrested.
People within the community assign a very high value to public order. At the community level, disorder and crime are inextricably linked, in a kind of developmental sequence. Vandalism can occur anywhere once communal barriers are lowered by actions that seem to signal that “no one cares.” The authors suggest that “untended” behavior leads to the breakdown in community controls. Such an area is vulnerable to criminal invasion. Though it is not inevitable, it is more likely that here, rather than in places where people are confident they can regulate public behavior by informal controls, drugs will change hands, prostitutes will solicit, and cars will be stripped.
In response to fear, people avoid one another, weakening the controls. Serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked. The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window. Muggers and robbers, whether opportunistic or professional, believe they reduce their chances of being caught or even identified if they operate on streets where potential victims are already intimidated by prevailing conditions.
The essence of the police role in maintaining order is to reinforce the informal control mechanisms of the community itself. How can the police strengthen the informal social-control mechanisms of natural communities in order to minimize fear in public places? Law enforcement, per se is not the answer. A gang can weaken and destroy a community by standing about in a menacing fashion and speaking rudely to a passerby without breaking the law. If one were to travel back in time to the City of New York in the 1970’s, then this would be the image one would come upon.
Mssrs. Kelling and Wilson’s work translates more today in the cyber-world than one would think. I have based much of my legal research and analysis on solving corporate cyber-security issues, thanks in tremendous part, to the sociological work done by these two men. The cyber-world we live in today resembles much of the “physical world” Mssrs. Kelling and Wilson observed in their pioneering research. The answer to solving one of the most pressing issues of our modern-day – cyber-security – may be derived from their work.
Though I have never had the privilege of meeting Mr. James Wilson, his theory has greatly impacted the work I do today for clientele when consulting on data privacy and security matters. But for the Broken Windows Theory, and its practical application within the City of New York, I firmly believe my law practice would not be a differentiator in the marketplace.