Response Memo, Week Three
Charlotte Freitag
In their policy-shifting report “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety”, Wilson and Kelling (1982) make a case for why they believe proactive policing would help lower crime rates nationally and promote feelings of comfort across communities. They argue that the widespread usage of foot patrolling officers, as opposed to officers patrolling in vehicles, would promote positive civilian interactions and would deter crime, as the physical presence of police officers would dissuade potential criminals from acting out in public spaces (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Their assertions are based on research the Police Foundation conducted in Newark, New Jersey, where they observed how the presence of foot patrol officers shaped the community and its crime rate (Wilson and Kelling 1982). After the experiment ran its course, they concluded that while the actual crime rate was unchanged, residents perceived the neighborhood as safer than it had been before the foot patrol officers began circulating the area …show more content…
The tactic, however, has some critical flaws that prevent it from being an effective and constitutional method of crime prevention. One major flaw pointed out in Bergner’s 2014 article for The Atlantic “Is Stop-and-Frisk Worth It?” is that the system is built upon implicit racism and sexism. The stops made by foot patrol officers disproportionately target black and hispanic males (Bergner 2014). The sweeping majority of the stops (88%) result in no arrest or confiscation of contraband, proving that the “potential criminals” identified by police are more often than not law-abiding citizens (Bergner 2014). While the practice of stop and frisk was deemed unconstitutional in New York, it is still carried out, but with less frequency (Bergner
Charlotte Freitag
In their policy-shifting report “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety”, Wilson and Kelling (1982) make a case for why they believe proactive policing would help lower crime rates nationally and promote feelings of comfort across communities. They argue that the widespread usage of foot patrolling officers, as opposed to officers patrolling in vehicles, would promote positive civilian interactions and would deter crime, as the physical presence of police officers would dissuade potential criminals from acting out in public spaces (Wilson and Kelling 1982). Their assertions are based on research the Police Foundation conducted in Newark, New Jersey, where they observed how the presence of foot patrol officers shaped the community and its crime rate (Wilson and Kelling 1982). After the experiment ran its course, they concluded that while the actual crime rate was unchanged, residents perceived the neighborhood as safer than it had been before the foot patrol officers began circulating the area …show more content…
The tactic, however, has some critical flaws that prevent it from being an effective and constitutional method of crime prevention. One major flaw pointed out in Bergner’s 2014 article for The Atlantic “Is Stop-and-Frisk Worth It?” is that the system is built upon implicit racism and sexism. The stops made by foot patrol officers disproportionately target black and hispanic males (Bergner 2014). The sweeping majority of the stops (88%) result in no arrest or confiscation of contraband, proving that the “potential criminals” identified by police are more often than not law-abiding citizens (Bergner 2014). While the practice of stop and frisk was deemed unconstitutional in New York, it is still carried out, but with less frequency (Bergner