“Broken Windows” In Theory and In Practice

“Broken Windows” in Theory and in Practice

by Paul A. Pastor, Ph.D.

Sheriff of Pierce County Washington, Retired

In 1982, sociologist James Q. Wilson and political scientist George Kelling authored an article entitled “Broken Windows.” Briefly, the article focuses on the role of minor crime and disorder (e.g., broken windows, graffiti, tolerance of minor theft and other criminal activities) in generating and sustaining more serious crime.

They asserted that police could prevent more serious crimes by helping resolve smaller criminal matters and maintaining a level of social expectation for law abiding behavior in partnership with communities. Because, if boundaries of acceptable behavior are regarded as flexible, then people will test and retest those boundaries until they encounter resistance and meaningful consequences.

Fast forward to 2023 to Seattle and Portland and several other major jurisdictions which have been through a period of controversy and mistrust involving police. Sometimes this was caused by actual, very serious instances of police misconduct. I have written earlier about the importance of a willingness to "call out our own" when such misconduct occurs.

But it has also been caused by a policy preference for more lenient approaches to disorder, crime and for reducing or eliminating criminal penalties. And, sometimes, it is caused by outright hostility to traditional ideas of community order and lawful conduct.

In Seattle and Portland, and in many other large jurisdictions nationwide, windows truly do get broken, and, when repaired, they just get broken again. Many other minor criminal laws get broken as well.

News stories regularly feature local community residents as well as owners and employees of businesses who express concern about minor offenses becoming more frequent. They see the neglect of minor incidents as loosening the boundaries of acceptable behavior and leading to more serious crimes: crimes such as organized retail theft, arson, armed robberies, and serious assaults as the boundaries of acceptable behavior are loosened. They speak of their growing frustration, their concern and their mistrust of local government priorities and the criminal justice system.

Some local government officials and state law makers seem to encourage this disengagement. They encourage or even require the police and the rest of the criminal justice system to ignore minor crimes. And they appear oblivious to the very real, costly and disruptive consequences that this brings.

The answer does not lie in reverting to the opposite extreme of heavy-handed zero tolerance crack-downs. But neither does it lie in current policies which result in tacit-tolerance of minor crime, in carelessly stretching boundaries of acceptable behavior and in fostering a reckless approach of community "de-policing."

There is good reason to believe that our current ill-considered experiment in “anything goes” has taken us down the wrong path. To a place where more than just windows get broken. Time for local and state officials to count the costs of their decisions. Because when “anything goes,” pretty soon everything’s gone.