“One unrepaired, broken window is a signal that no one cares and so breaking more windows costs nothing.” ?Wilson and Kelling
A couple of weeks ago somebody spray painted a swastika on the asphalt of a road that I travel on often. Each time I see it, I think to myself that I wish someone would clean that up. I think I will.
It reminded me of a friend of mine, Martin, who came to work one day and told me that someone spray painted gang graffiti on the sign for the children”s park.
After work he went to the park and scrubbed and repainted, until the sign looked new. That was a really decent thing to do. But more than that, he may have inadvertently diverted crime in the neighborhood.
Which brings me to conversation I had last Sunday with my father, who told me about a man he knew named George L. Kelling.
Kelling is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, and a fellow in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Kelling is researching organizational change in policing and the development of comprehensive community crime prevention programs.
His most recent major publication is “Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities (by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling).” The meaning of “broken windows” suggests that a series of events are inevitable in deteriorating neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods with evidence of decay or physical signs of deterioration, such as broken windows, trash, dilapidated buildings, graffiti, or even old dead cars on the street or driveway that remain for an extended period of time, cause people to feel increased vulnerability, not just for residents, but for visitors as well.
Because a sense of fear is established, criminals often respond by becoming more brazen and committing higher levels of crime. Additionally, offenders then come in from other areas because a prime crime playground is now in place.
New York City”s stunning crime declines of the 1990s were a result of nipping problems in the bud. Mayor Rudolf Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton anticipated and demanded reductions stating that only “double-digit drops would do.”
The idea is that there are not a lot of criminals, but those who are; do it for a living.
Most people are more worried about spilling grape juice on a clean, light carpet than on a dirty, dark floor, because it”s much more noticeable.
Kelling says we should let the police crack down on minor offenses in order to reduce more serious crime. “In New York City, the unsolicited washing of car windows was ended in three weeks when police, having previously issued citations, returned to arrest “squeegee men” who had outstanding warrants. On Indianapolis” west side, aggressive drug dealing and intimidation of public housing residents ended when a neighborhood prosecutor obtained a court order banning known drug dealers from the development. In Boston, police, along with federal, state and local prosecutors, probation officers and Harvard researchers collaborated in an effort that reduced juvenile gang-related murders from 17 in 1995 to none in 1996. The officials convened a meeting of gang members to give them a message: No violence would be tolerated; if violence was threatened or actually erupted, probation conditions rigorously would be enforced and probation revoked at the slightest infraction, laws against disorderly behavior strictly would be enforced, those with pending charges jailed and outstanding warrants served immediately,” Kelling wrote in Insight, answering the question “Is the rigorous enforcement of anti-nuisance laws a good idea?”
On the West coast, in our own backyard, in a San Jose neighborhood, public nuisance statutes were used to rescue residents in the community from imprisonment in their own homes, after an outside gang took over the area, turning it into drug dealing turf. Arson, vandalism, thefts, assaults, shootings and murders followed. Residents literally barricaded themselves in homes and isolation occurred as a result of family and friends who were too fearful to frequent the neighborhood, leaving just the residents. People who attempted to speak out or intervene, suffered repercussions and most eventually retreated. As a result the City of San Jose brought suit against 38 gang members, stating that the behavior constituted a public nuisance, and asked the court to enjoin the defendant”s activities. The case, People vs. Acuna, moved to the State Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the city and citizens”.
It worked. The gang members were legally prevented from “standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing in public view with any other defendant.”
The good people got their neighborhood back. This is a prime illustration of why nuisance abatements are so effective.
I used to think of nuisance abatements as insignificant. I thought that police must really have bigger fish to fry. In reality, most of the time, they”re the same fish after all. They”ve just found a new pond to swim in and better bait.
Mandy Feder is the Record-Bee news editor. She can be reached at mandyfeder@yahoo.com or 263-5636 Ext. 32.
