- Messages
- 17,196
- Location
- New York City
Similar changes were noticed in cities which did not adopt "Zero Tolerance" or "Broken Windows" policies, but simply got the officers out of the cars and in on the streets. The studies which initially supported the "Broken Windows" policy have been, with further research, found to be problematic. There are indications, no completed clear studies, but strong indications, that police engagement in the community, with foot patrols, neighborhood officers who stay in one place for years at a time, getting to really know (and be known by) the residents, and close attention to neighborhood well-being by the Police force administration seems to show better results than adversarial "stop and frisk" techniques. Such police work is also ultimately found to be more rewarding by the majority of officers, though it is not to the liking of certain personality types who tend to be problematic.
To avoid having this slip into politics as you alluded - I am going to say that I agree there is still open debate (I, like you, have read extensively on this) and that to me it isn't settled. I also learned from this conversation that I conflate to many things under the "broken window" banner; i.e., getting police on the streets, getting them familiar with the community, etc., maybe isn't "broken window" policing (stopping small crimes), but since in NYC, they both happened at the same time, I put them under the same banner but shouldn't. But I would add that "stop and frisk" is, also, only one part of "broken window" policing.