The “Broken Windows” hypothesis was developed by Wilson and Kelling in 1982. The main idea is that small offenses, or disorder, such as graffiti, loitering, public urination, evasion of public fares, and other “incivilities” cause serious crimes such as robbery, rape, murder, arson, and others. This idea was taken to heart by several police forces across the country, such as Tempe, and gave justification to crackdowns on a new artificial category, the “disorderly”, which can include youth, the homeless, and other vulnerable populations.
When the ‘Quality of Life’ Initiative, which followed “Broken Windows” ideals, debuted in New York City in the early-mid-nineties, it was lauded for the lowered crime rates which accompanied it. Notably, it focused on offenses such as metro fare avoidance, public prostitution, and homelessness. Rates of homicide and other serious crimes dropped within only a few years by nearly 60 percent! Wasn’t it obvious that the program was a success? Not necessarily… What wasn’t reported was that crime rates dropped throughout the nineties in almost all major US cities. Some (Boston) had initiated similar policies, whereas some (Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio) had not! Some researchers think that the decline in crime had little to do with any sort of police activity, and much more to do with the economic boom the country was experiencing.
We have seen the criminalization of all sorts of small offenses in Tempe in past years. Plainclothes officers patrol to enforce the anti-smoking ordinance. In January, 2003, it became illegal to paint the ‘A’. Graffiti disappears within a few days. Cruising on Mill is criminal and enforced by police entering the plates of passing cars into a computer. Loud music and loud parties are not just unkind, they are punishable by law. The latter and many of the former acts can cost fines of up to and exceeding $1,000. However, the most inhumane laws against ‘disorder’ are those targeting the homeless. In Tempe, it is currently illegal to panhandle aggressively (that is, ask more than once), sit on the sidewalks of Mill, camp in urban spaces (that is, sleep and live), and urinate publicly. All of these offenses are created to target one certain population, the homeless of Tempe. Trespassing laws are also used to combat the homeless. It is virtually impossible to exist as a homeless person without committing one of these offenses in a day, especially as restrooms are privatized and when there are not enough spaces and services (which there never are). Essentially, these laws criminalize homelessness itself, and, in turn, criminalizing the untreated mentally ill and poor. Tempe is not the only Arizona city to crack down on the homeless. Aside from the normal battery of offenses, Tucson has made it unlawful to be at a bus stop for more the 30 minutes. Phoenix now has a city code prohibiting the operation of shopping carts in public parks. Incidentally, Phoenix also has a rate of civilian killings higher than that of the LAPD or NYPD, and we can only assume that the use of force against the homeless is also extreme.
We can also see no decline at all in the rate of serious criminal offenses since the implementation of “Broken Windows”-style policies in Tempe. In fact, since 1996 we have seen an increase in serious crimes (although this is most likely due to random variation in the data or population increase)! Interestingly enough, Tempe has one of the highest serious crime rates in the Valley per capita. For example, Tempe’s 2001 crime rate was much higher (almost twice) than that of Phoenix, Mesa, or Glendale. Somehow, despite pushing out the homeless population and eliminating graffiti, rapes continue to happen in Tempe, and so do homicides! Perhaps Tempe Police policies do not counter these acts! Perhaps instead they are simply aimed at keeping Tempe (especially Mill) safe and sanitized for college-aged and wealthy shoppers. In fact, we can see the connection to business interests very clearly when we examine the changes on Mill. Whole stretches of street have been privatized (the better to force people to leave the premises). Disturbingly expensive apartments/lofts have been built, funded by tens of millions of the city’ s money (the Brickyard, etc.), when help is given to few on the bottom. Time and time again we see concessions being given to the rich. “Broken Windows” policing reinforces these patterns by driving out people who cannot afford to spend, or who make life less of a fairytale for those who can.
Tempe Police officers claim that “they can see the difference” that heavy enforcement makes. However, the facts do not bear out. The main study cited to validate the “Broken Windows” hypothesis, the Skogan study, does not even show any correlation between social or physical disorder and crime, except in the case of robbery, and, even then, the connection is based entirely on five specific neighborhoods which hold undue sway over the results. Otherwise, the study itself shows that there is no connection between disorder and serious crime, when factors such as levels of wealth are accounted for. When police maintain that there is a connection between “broken windows” policing and apprehending serious criminals, this is probably only due to the much more increased numbers of people being searched and detained, and not to any connection between small offenses and serious crime. Recently I heard the sister of an officer describe a situation in which his partner urinated all over the home and belongings of a homeless man. In November of 2002, Tempe CopWatch Team 2 witnessed and videotaped a man being handcuffed and taken onto jail for jaywalking and expressing his opinions. Such offenses happen all the time in Tempe. When do we make it stop? The idea that crimes such as rape and murder are encouraged by graffiti and the presence of homeless people is ridiculous. These theories are simply cover ups for policies of repression and harassment, especially of some of the most helpless and vulnerable populations. The police enforce the class line, by profiling and by dealing out fines which some (such as the homeless) cannot possibly hope to pay. The police enforce racial lines (especially by profiling and selective enforcement of laws). The police want to make sure that shoppers are safe from the unsightly, from poverty, and from “the disorderly”. Resist the Police!
