City University of New York



Panel Response to Broken Windows PolicingTo: Namita ChadFrom: Krzys Haranczyk, Olena Kushnir Date: May 7, 2015Re: Response to Presentation on Broken Windows PolicingIt was interesting and informative to read Ms. Chad’s brief, which passionately highlights many widespread and endemic problems with the American criminal justice system, and correctly stresses the disproportionate impact on low-income citizens, communities of color, and immigrants, not just in New York City, but throughout the country. However, in presenting a multidimensional critique of current criminal justice policies, it appears that the author has not sufficiently focused on analyzing “Broken Windows Policing” specifically. Additionally, while the author advocates for changes to policies at various points in her brief, the policy discussion is not presented in a way that allows a reader to understand the precise contours of policy alternatives, and to weigh the relative costs and benefits of each option in assessing which policies are most viable.The author introduces her brief with the case of Eric Garner’s tragic death at the hands of “hyper-aggressive” NYPD officers, who attempted to arrest Mr. Garner for selling untaxed cigarettes on the street. But the justified outcry about the Garner case was about police brutality, and a grand jury’s refusal to indict the offending police officer. The author then turns to critiquing the “War on Drugs,” expressing alarm at the high rate of plea bargains, and emphasizing the dramatic implications for immigrants of having certain minor offenses classified as “Crimes of Moral Turpitude.” But these problems in law enforcement and the criminal justice system are distinct from “broken windows policing,” which theorizes that serious crime will decline if police intensify enforcement against less severe crimes such as graffiti, prostitution, public intoxication or urination, fare evasion, and minor shoplifting. By linking “broken windows policing” with the harm that flows from these other criminal justice flaws, the author does make a strong case for the seriousness of the general problems, but does not present much empirical support for the proposition that “broken windows policing” itself does more ill than good. The author notes that crime has fallen in cities that have not implemented “broken windows policing” to the same extent that NYC has, but this does not disprove that “broken windows policing” may indeed be a major cause of the decline in NYC crime rates over the past two decades. The reference to the “virtual work stoppage” by an NYC police union at the end of 2014 is too particular and short-term an example to provide empirical support for the argument that “broken windows policing” does not prevent serious crime. The author assumes that “broken windows policing” does not actually work.The author advocates a “first step policy” of doing away with performance quotas related to “quality of life policing” set by police departments – quotas which incentivize law enforcement officials to abuse their authority, disproportionally harming poor and vulnerable communities. This seems to be a relatively concrete policy idea, and its impact can be measured; as opposed to Ms. Chad’s very general suggestions that police “decrease enforcement of quality of life crimes,” that government should provide more drug-treatment and job training programs in crime-infested areas, that police should adopt “community-oriented policing,” or that Congress should “overhaul the mandatory deportation guidelines.” The “first step policy” that is referenced strikes us as the most viable, but the author does not further analyze the implications of eliminating quotas. For example, a sharp, publicly known drop in enforcement of “quality of life” offenses can lead to a spike in petty crime, which cumulatively can degrade public safety and increase public health challenges (i.e. prostitution, public urination). Further, although Ms. Chad, in her oral presentation and response to the panel’s questions, acknowledged an alternative policy option built around decriminalization of certain victimless behaviors (such as modest marijuana possession), the policy brief does not account for this option. In summary, the brief would benefit from a structure of specific policy options, and consideration of costs and benefits. Still, the conversation on policy brutality is essential – especially in light of a flurry of recent events across the United States. A strong argument was made against the mass incarceration of low-level offenders, including the fact that over 90% of cases resulted in plea bargains. Such results re-affirm the thought that most arrests function merely as quotas utilized as additional sources of revenue for municipalities. Arguments involving high occurrences of plea bargains, the deportation of legal permanent residents, and disproportionate negative impact on lower-level communities are strong; but they are endemic of a larger social justice issue than broken windows policing. The panel would have also appreciated seeing a more detailed policy suggestion regarding policing quotas. Unfortunately, removing all quotas is not feasible. What are ways in which the quota system can be reformed? Are there other priorities the police department should require as essential performance evaluation/tracking for individual officers? However, we do support and highly recommend exploring the policy option of enhanced community-relations policing. Humanizing police officers, and encouraging their relationship to the communities that they are sworn to protect, are essential steps in improving the trust that low income communities have in the police department. The “Right to Know” act is a policy that will ensure police identification and accountability, but it may also further harm police relations with the community. The police will feel targeted, and thus will envision their role as “responders” to antagonistic communities, rather than extensions of the respective communities that they are policing. Suggesting community panels and organizing meetings between local patrol officers and the communities they police will go a long way in proving to the police and the community that both parties are willing to develop their relations. Indeed, such options will even indirectly lessen the impact of broken windows policing, as such policies will no longer be as necessary within neighborhoods that have an open dialogue with law enforcement. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download