Revisiting the Theory of Broken Windows Policing

Author:

Piston Spencer

Abstract

How has the academy contributed to the horrors of policing in the United States? While many scholars study policing, few do so from a self-reflective position, which would examine how the production of knowledge has often legitimized policing’s harms. As part of a larger effort to encourage researchers to come to terms with the role we have played in facilitating contemporary atrocities, here I reconsider political scientist James Q. Wilson and criminologist George L. Kelling’s 1982 “Broken Windows” essay, as well as its intellectual legacy. Their essay is best known for speculating that police foot-patrols, by cracking down on low-level offenses, will reduce serious crime. While this speculation has become the subject of much public and academic debate, the relationship between policing and crime is only a secondary point in the article. Unfortunately, focusing on this secondary point has led scholarly and public discourse to distort the essay’s arguments. I correct this distortion through a close reading of the essay. Wilson and Kelling argue that the primary objective of the police should be to maintain order rather than to prevent crime or even to enforce the law. As such, police should discourage behavior inconsistent with neighborhood standards (even if it is not criminal) and should also remove “disorderly” people from public life (even if they are not breaking the law). Indeed, Wilson and Kelling actually endorse illegal actions in certain instances: when these actions are committed by either police or vigilantes to fashion and maintain the authoritarian, classist, ableist, and racist order that the authors envision. After discussing how an accurate understanding of the original “Broken Windows” article has the potential to reorient contemporary studies policing, I conclude by locating broken windows theory as an important member of a family of harmful ideas, generated by academics, that have underwritten a wide range of authoritarian policing practices.

Publisher

Lifescience Global

Subject

Law,Sociology and Political Science,Cultural Studies

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3