Exploring Two Theories of Criminal Behavior
If I may be so bold, I’d like to get a little academic with you this month.
As some researchers have tried to explain criminal behavior, two interesting theories have been compared or placed in opposition of one another. The first, you may have heard of before; I believe I have talked about it in the past as it is, in part, the basis for our crime control model of policing employed out of the Perris Station. The second theory may be new to you, but will be recognized or logical once I introduce it to you here shortly. In this article, I want to get you to think more about the second theory than the first because you, a member of the community, play a larger role here. Law enforcement, if done effective, has more responsibility with the first theory.
Okay, if I haven’t lost you, let us explore the two theories.
The first is the broken windows theory, which maintains “that a high level of neighborhood disorder indirectly influences high crime through a chain of events that begins with neighborhood disorder and then advances to dynamics such as fear of crime and weakened social control – which serve as a breeding ground for more serious crime." 1 Essentially, criminals feel free or empowered to commit crime if they believe no one cares enough about the neighborhood to ensure the upkeep and order. The example is that an unrepaired window leads to more broken windows, accumulation of graffiti and trash, vagrants gather, and the next thing you know blight seems to take over a segment of the community, and the criminal enterprise rules the area.
The second theory is collective efficacy, which asserts “that high crime flourishes not because of high neighborhood disorder, but rather as a result of low collective efficacy – a low sense of community for the public good – or low capacities for collective action for the public good.” 2 Collective efficacy relies upon the “trust, solidarity, and the willingness of residents to intervene on behalf of the public good.” 3 This means looking out for our neighbors, getting actively involved in what is going on in the community, taking back our public spaces (i.e., parks, street corners, or local hangouts) from that element which hopes we remain intimidated and fearful of reprisal for speaking out.
This is pretty logical, right? I am confident you get it.
So why is the first theory more popular than the last? Notice, I did not say that one theory has proven to be more effective than the other, nor did I enter the debate as to which offers a better explanation for criminal activity. In fact, the debate continues in the academic arena. I only want to address why broken windows theory has demonstrated to be more popular and/or received more attention. As I view the two theories, I immediately identify two reasons.
The first has to do with who is responsible for intervening. The second has to do with the amount of effort or cost necessary to dedicate resources to the problem. Let’s be honest, do you, your neighbor, your community get involved? Probably not as much as you could or should, right?
In many communities, there is a general assumption that crime and disorder is a police responsibility. Essentially, the thought is “what are you (the police) going to do about this crime problem?” Interestingly, for some reason we rarely hear “what can we (the community, to include the police) do about the crime problem?” Given that this is a common perspective, the broken windows theory makes a lot of sense; there is little need for collective efficacy if law enforcement bears the brunt of the responsibility.
Following along this idea, and bolstering the popularity of the theory, for a community to truly get involved, it will require resources; these resources usually come with a larger price tag. A price few are willing to commit to, especially when the economy remains low. What I am referring to are community programs for kids and adults, advanced education, job opportunities, and other social services. In other words, collective efficacy requires a true commitment by everyone to the value of the community. This is clearly something easier for us to think and talk about, but much more difficult to take action on.
Are you thinking? I know you are.
James P. McElvain
Chief of Police
References:
1. Peter K. B. St. Jean, Pockets of Crime (2007).
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.