Broken windows theory: can graffiti on walls and garbage provoke people to crime

How did the broken windows theory come about?

In 1969, Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo spent interesting experiment. He left the car - without a license plate and with the hood up - on a street in the Bronx, not the most prosperous area in New York.

The ownerless car was attacked within the first 10 minutes: a married couple with a small son removed the radiator and battery from the car. And in a day everything that was of any value was stolen. The windows were broken, some parts were torn off, even the upholstery on the armchair was damaged.

There was nothing surprising in this: it was not uncommon for cars to be abandoned in the Bronx, and the townspeople were accustomed to cracking down on them in this way.

Then Zimbardo took the same car and parked it on the street in Palo Alto, a prosperous area in California. It is considered the unofficial capital of Silicon Valley and is adjacent to the campus of Stanford University.

Here the car remained untouched for more than a week. But when Zimbardo smashed part of the car with a sledgehammer, within a few hours, "no one's" property was attacked by vandals in the same way as in the Bronx.

The scientist explained the difference in the time it took for the destruction in these cities, the habit of conditions. In the Bronx, cars are more likely to be abandoned and things are broken, while in Palo Alto, property is monitored and inappropriate behavior is punished.

However, when the inhabitants of a good area were convinced that the car was a draw, which means that no one would ask them for its breakdown, they destroyed it in the same way as people from New York.

Inspired by this experiment, sociologist James Wilson and George Kelling, professor of the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice in Newark, developed the broken windows theory.

What is the broken windows theory

The first mention of this theory appeared in an article by Wilson and Kelling published in The Atlantic.

If a window in a building is broken and no one puts in a new one, the rest of the windows will soon be broken as well.

Signs of decay that no one is going to fix is ​​a signal that no one cares about this property. So, vandalism does not threaten with bad consequences. Moreover, as Zimbardo's experiment showed, this is true for any area - prosperous or not.

The essence of the broken windows theory is that an environment that turns a blind eye to petty offenses like throwing garbage on the streets or painting graffiti on the walls, makes a person more free to relate to the rules, and sometimes to the laws.

If a person sees that the rules are being violated and no one cares about this, he will do what is more convenient or beneficial for him: “Since it’s possible for others, why can’t I?”

Dutch scientists checked this theory through small experiments.

In the first, flyers were hung on the handlebars of parked bicycles with wishes for a good weekend and the brand of a non-existent sports shop. There was no trash can on site.

People could do the right thing - take the flyer with them to throw it away elsewhere, or commit violation - throw an unnecessary piece of paper under your feet or hang it on someone else's bike.

It turned out that when the wall next to the parking lot was covered in graffiti, 69% of participants littered or hitched a “gift” to a nearby steering wheel. And when she was clean, only 33% did so.

In the following experiments, the scientists tested whether citizens would squeeze through a hole between a temporary fence, litter at the bus stop or in the parking lot of the supermarket, and whether they will take an envelope with 5 euros sticking out invitingly from the post office box.

It turned out that people were 2-3 times more likely to drop flyers, ignore prohibitions, and steal when there were signs of other violations nearby.

For example, scattered carts in the parking lot, bicycles strapped right under the prohibition sign, graffiti on the wall, and even the sound of fireworks, which cannot be launched in the weeks before the New Year.

Experiments clearly showed that even minor factors that probably went unnoticed pushed people to violations.

Wilson and Kelling speculated that if the police were to deal not only with serious offenses like robberies and shootings, but also with minor offenses like drinking alcohol in the wrong places, the total number of crimes will drop. And the experience of the police in New York has shown that this is possible.

Can fighting petty disorderly behavior reduce crime rates?

In the early 90s, Police Commissioner William Bratton ordered his subordinates to arrest as many people as possible jumping over turnstiles in metro.

It would seem that the capture of "hares" is not such a serious task for the police, but the results showed otherwise. In the process, it turned out that one of the seven jumpers was wanted for other crimes, and one of the 20 was carrying a knife, pistol or other weapon.

By addressing such a minor infraction as an unpaid fare, Bratton was able to reduce subway crime rates by 30%.

In 1993, newly elected New York Mayor Rudy Julian promised residents to clean up the streets of the city and appointed Bratton to head police. After receiving the post, he took into account the lessons of the past and paid close attention to minor offenses - for example, vandalism, drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in public places.

This approach has borne fruit. In the 2001 Kelling report indicatedthat between 1990 and 1998 New York's homicide rate dropped by 70%, robbery by 60%, and total violent crime by 50%.

Kelling claimed that the police's fight against petty offenses helped prevent more than 60,000 crimes.

Over time, things with crime began to get better. In 1993, the number of murders in the city was equal to 26.5 per 100,000 people, in 2015 - 4 per 100,000 people. The most populous city in the United States has become safer than many others.

In 20 years, the crime rate across the country has halved, and in New York by more than six times.

At the same time, like any other approach, the broken windows theory is subject to criticism. Law Professor Bernard Harcourt claimsthat the crime rate in New York began to decline even before law enforcement officers paid close attention to hooliganism.

Moreover, it happened all over the country - and even in those cities where police departments were mired in corruption scandals and did not fulfill their duties, such as in Los Angeles. It is believed that this happened because of a growing economy, a decrease in the use of crack and cocaine, or tougher sentences.

In general, modern scholars agree that the fight against petty offenses is unlikely to reduce the share of violent acts by 60-70%, but at the same time it is able to reduce the overall level crime.

Thus, although the broken windows theory did not provide a panacea for urban crime, it did shed light on some aspects of human behavior.

In the long term, the elimination of petty offenses can incline people to more decent behavior. And not just to keep them from the temptation to litter or take something from someone else, but to exclude even the appearance of such a thought.