Imagine you and a few friends are winding down, relaxing around a campfire outside your homes. Sounds peaceful, right? I’m sure many of us have probably experienced something similar. But for some people, this is their reality: Cops pull up and tell everyone to disperse or else they will be searched or possibly arrested. This is the truth behind broken-windows policing. Broken windows is an antiquated type of discretionary policing that legally allows for the disproportionate discrimination and criminalization of minorities, specifically African Americans and the poor. This method should be completely put to rest as scholars have proved that it does not achieve its intended purpose, further marginalizes minorities and is unfruitful for all parties involved.
Broken-windows policing was first proposed in 1982 by George Kelling and James Wilson as a solution to prevent serious crime by cracking down on minor crimes and maintaining order. With this tactic comes the discretionary process of deciding what “order” looks like, creating a space to push racialized agendas. With this type of discretionary policing, we can understand how we’ve seen a 700% increase in incarceration from 1972 to 2009, as the Sentencing Project has reported. It’s not to say that broken-window policing is the primary suspect for this exponential increase, but it is part of a cornucopia of practices like it that comprise what we call our criminal justice system.
This policing method led to the implementation of “stop and frisk” searches, which only created further animosity and fractured the bond of trust between the community and law enforcement. Engendering distrust and a weary attitude toward police only leads to more violent crime. The Sentencing Project reports that in 1970, 30% of prisoners were convicted for a violent crime; in 2022 that percentage rose to 63%. Although broken windows is presented as a way to crack down on crime, and maintain order, it has only further exacerbated the issue.
Historically, broken-windows policing has deepened the marginalization of already disadvantaged communities by enabling law enforcement to disproportionately target people of color and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This approach, which grants police broad discretion to patrol, search and arrest individuals in these communities, raises important questions about its fairness: If minor crimes and disorder are prevalent across all neighborhoods, why is this policing strategy predominantly applied to minority areas? Furthermore, broken-windows policing can be linked to the historical legacy of the Black Codes — laws implemented following the abolition of slavery that systematically restricted the rights and freedoms of African Americans, particularly with regard to their mobility and autonomy. In cities like Baltimore, broken-windows policing has led to the criminalization of behaviors such as “strolling while poor” or “driving while Black.” Not only do these practices reflect the same racial biases embedded within the Black Codes, but they perpetuate a contemporary system of racial control that contributes to what activist Michelle Alexander calls the “New Jim Crow” within the criminal justice system.
Broken-windows policing is not just costly for the millions of minorities it affects every year but economically and practically harmful to society at large. This approach to crime erodes trust between law enforcement and communities, requiring additional resources and manpower to manage the increased volume of arrests, paperwork, judicial proceedings and corrections staff. Incarcerating one individual in Maryland costs approximately $14,000 annually, according to one estimate. Given the unnecessary arrests driven by broken-windows policing, the financial burden on taxpayers is substantial. This method is both impractical and costly, rendering its continued use indefensible.
Eliminating this biased, discretionary, unethical and unproductive policing practice would bring us one step closer to reforming the many backward aspects of America’s criminal justice system. Although advocates for broken windows may argue that it improves the quality of the community and creates a safer space, it has historically and statistically proved that it fails to accomplish those aims. So, the next time you engage in a casual mundane activity, such as a bonfire, in your community — think about how that same practice may be criminalized for someone else.
Lucy Iannotti is a student at the University of Tennessee studying criminology.