|
|
Organization is the key for a smooth move and this is the time to start getting the details of your move.
Web apps for iPhone and iPod touch combine the power of the Internet with the simplicity of Multi-Touch technology, all on a 3.5-inch screen. You'll find a growing list o...
It has also been argued that rates of major crimes also dropped in many other U.S. cities during the 1990s, both those that had adopted "zero tolerance" policies and those that had not.[10] In the Winter 2006 edition of the University of Chicago Law Review, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig looked at the later Department of Housing and Urban Development program that re-housed inner-city project tenants in New York into more orderly neighborhoods.[11] The Broken Windows theory would suggest that these tenants would commit less crime once moved, due to the more stable conditions on the streets. Harcourt and Ludwig found instead that the tenants continued to commit crime at the same rate.
In a 2007 study called "Reefer Madness" in the journal Criminology and Public Policy, Harcourt and Ludwig found further evidence confirming that "mean reversion" fully explained the changes in crime rates in the different precincts in New York during the 1990s. Further alternative explanations that have been put forward include the waning of the crack epidemic,[12] unrelated growth in the prison population due to Rockefeller drug laws,[12] and that the number of males aged 16�24 was dropping regardless due to demographic changes.[13]
[edit]Drawbacks in practice
A low-level intervention of police in neighborhoods has been considered problematic. Accordingly, Gary Stewart writes that "The central drawback of the approaches advanced by Wilson, Kelling, and Kennedy rests in their shared blindness to the potentially harmful impact of broad police discretion on minority communities."[14] This was seen by the authors, who worried that people would be arrested "for the 'crime' of being undesirable". According to Stewart, arguments for low-level police intervention, including the Broken Windows hypothesis, often act as cover for racist behavior.[14]
Other side effects may well be desired by governments or housing agencies, perhaps less by the current population of a neighborhood: broken windows can count as an indicator of low real estate value, and may deter investors. Fixing windows is therefore also a step of real estate development, which may lead, desired or not, to gentrification.
[edit]Criticism of the theory in popular press
In the best-seller More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2000), economist John Lott, Jr. examined the use of the broken windows approach as well as community and problem oriented policing programs in cities over 10,000 in population over two decades. He found that the impact of these policing policies were not very consistent across different types of crime. He described the pattern as almost "random". For the broken windows approach, Lott found that the approach was actually associated with murder and auto theft rising and rapes and larceny falling. Increased arrest rates, affirmative action policies for hiring police, and right-to-carry laws were much more important in explaining the changes in crime rates.
In the best-seller Freakonomics, economist Steven D. Levitt and co-author Stephen J. Dubner cast doubt on the notion that the Broken Windows theory was wholly responsible for New York's drop in crime. He instead noticed that years before the 1990s, abortion was legalized. Women who were least able to raise kids (the poor, addicts and unstable) were able to get abortions, so the number of children being born in broken families was decrea Getting
|
It is ok to contact this poster with commercial interests.
Tags: ★ PLEASE CALL US FOR QUOTE AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. (818 220 8523)
|
|
