What should Catholics think of the broken-windows theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It seems to me that where this theory has been applied, it is has largely proven successful in reducing violent crime, and allowing for increased economic opportunities that help to re-energize areas that were once on the downslide. Look at New York City in the 80’s for example, compared to under Guiliani. There was quite a resurgence in areas such as Time Square, Harlem, Hell’s Kitchen, etc.
 
If
Maxirad said:
visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes.
Click to expand...
–and I believe they do: then preventing such visible signs will help to
Maxirad said:
create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think it fits perfectly. A Catholic should equally not ignore venial sins as they too are important and can lead one to mortal sins.
 
Hodos said:
It seems to me that where this theory has been applied, it is has largely proven successful in reducing violent crime, and allowing for increased economic opportunities that help to re-energize areas that were once on the downslide. Look at New York City in the 80’s for example, compared to under Guiliani. There was quite a resurgence in areas such as Time Square, Harlem, Hell’s Kitchen, etc.
Click to expand...
In the late 80s and early 90s, NYC routinely recorded anywhere from 1800 to over 2200 murders per year. A lot of the city was a slum (think The Warriors or Taxi Driver). These last few years, there have been less than a murder per day and the place is seen as relatively safe and family-friendly.
 
vern_humphrey said:
40.png
Beryllos:
This Catholic thinks it is a good and useful theory.
Click to expand...
That’s reasonable, given that it’s been proven to work.
Click to expand...
That depends on how it is implemented. If it is implemented moderately, it can help. But if implemented with too heavy a hand it becomes counter-productive as it shatters community trust. The people in the communities where minor infractions are heavily policed can come to think of the police as more their enemy than their protectors. In that case the police will not get much voluntary cooperation in terms of information and reporting. Police rely heavily on the support of the communities they police for information and support. If that is lost, the police are at a great disadvantage. So the verdict on broken-windows theory is a mixed bag.
Theo520 said:
I think it fits perfectly. A Catholic should equally not ignore venial sins as they too are important and can lead one to mortal sins.
Click to expand...
The decision of what laws to enforce and how strictly to enforce them is separate from the idea of “ignoring venial sins.” There are many venial sins that the civil government does not enforce. There are many of them that no one here would say should be enforced by the civil law enforcement.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That depends on how it is implemented. If it is implemented moderately, it can help. But if implemented with too heavy a hand it becomes counter-productive as it shatters community trust. The people in the communities where minor infractions are heavily policed can come to think of the police as more their enemy than their protectors. In that case the police will not get much voluntary cooperation in terms of information and reporting. Police rely heavily on the support of the communities they police for information and support. If that is lost, the police are at a great disadvantage. So the verdict on broken-windows theory is a mixed bag.
Click to expand...
In such a case then, broken window policing will not reduce crime – but wherever it has been tried, it has worked.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The decision of what laws to enforce and how strictly to enforce them is separate from the idea of “ignoring venial sins.” There are many venial sins that the civil government does not enforce. There are many of them that no one here would say should be enforced by the civil law enforcement.
Click to expand...
I don’t see your logic.

Broken windows isn’t really about ‘enforcing laws’, it’s about doing what’s right on the little things, like pick up the trash, clean the graffiti, repair broken windows, etc.

If you aren’t committing venial sins then you are far less likely to commit mortal sins. It’s just an analogy but I think it works great.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
where minor infractions are heavily policed
Click to expand...
I’m reminded me of an incident several years ago: I had met an acquaintance while on the train home. He was a homeless gentleman whom I had got to know quite well through several years volunteering at my parish’s homeless shelter.

Many homeless people in Australia tend to spend their evenings on trains as it’s often far safer than being subjected to the elements (or the abuse of drunk strangers) by sleeping in public. He didn’t have a train ticket, and it was unfortunate that we were subjected to a random ticket inspection: he was fined $200. Compare that to a speeding fine which begins at $100 in my state.

In any case, that $200 was equivalent to two weeks of social security, without which he was unable to afford either accommodation (99.95% of shelters in Sydney are pay-to-use, about $20–$30 per night), food and some luxuries.
 
Last edited:
But that’s an entirely different matter – society’s failure to care for such people doesn’t negate an effective means of preventing crime.
 
vern_humphrey said:
But that’s an entirely different matter – society’s failure to care for such people doesn’t negate an effective means of preventing crime.
Click to expand...
It is a consequence that should be considered. As the example shows, it can make it even harder to care for such people. The money used to pay the fine is money that cannot be used to buy food or pay for shelter.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is a consequence that should be considered. As the example shows, it can make it even harder to care for such people. The money used to pay the fine is money that cannot be used to buy food or pay for shelter.
Click to expand...
The fact that Australia charges for stays in shelters and people ride the trains for safety has nothing to do with policing.
 
vern_humphrey said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It is a consequence that should be considered. As the example shows, it can make it even harder to care for such people. The money used to pay the fine is money that cannot be used to buy food or pay for shelter.
Click to expand...
The fact that Australia charges for stays in shelters and people ride the trains for safety has nothing to do with policing.
Click to expand...
It does if that policing causes homeless people to incur fines.
 
The reason the state of the urban environment may affect crime may be three factors:
Click to expand...
Are not these factors all due the absence of a father in the home, especially in the home of adolescent males?

The disintegration of the family is the root problem The family was the primary mechanism to transfer norms and monitor behavior. The public schools cannot do it. The teachers must spend too much time trying to control misbehaving students with one hand tied behind their back. It only takes a few mis-behavers to disrupt an entire class.

Yes, fix the broken windows. But fix the family and our public education system. It would not be a bad ides to let God back into the classroom, as well.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It does if that policing causes homeless people to incur fines.
Click to expand...
You could just as easily say charging fares to ride the train causes people to incur fines. Or having banks causes people to go to prison for robbing banks.
 
o_mlly said:
Are not these factors all due the absence of a father in the home, especially in the home of adolescent males?
Click to expand...
There was an interesting documentary about a National Park in South Africa. The rangers were finding dear rhinos – dead of trauma, not of bullet wounds. Finally a ranger saw it happen, and got a video – the elephants were attacking and killing the rhinos.

But why? Elephants elsewhere in Africa don’t do that.

These elephants were transplanted into the park. Because full grown elephants are hard to handle, they trapped young elephants – just old enough to take care of themselves. They were going through puberty, and as the hormones kicked in, the young bulls became aggressive.

But elephants elsewhere in Africa don’t do that.

Elephants elsewhere in Africa are raised in groups that have big, mature bulls, and they teach the adolescent bulls how to behave.

Elephants and humans raised without fathers can turn out very badly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top