Current Events > Is "broken windows" a right-wing take?

(+) Yeah! (+)

For the record I do enjoy Blue Bloods and they seem to think this is a good way to control criminal activity on that show.

I will concede that it can easily be twisted by unfettered police to harass certain segments of the population they prejudge as "troublesome" instead of equally addressing low level crime across the board. That isn't right but you would have to agree it's not the policy's fault but the kinds of people enforcing it in that case.

Broken Windows was based on scientific study that says the exact opposite of what people who espouse Broken Windows policing.

It is literally just another form of social control and minority suppression used by anyone who thinks we need more cops.

It is 100% the fault of grifters and racists and we know what the origin is as much as we know how police departments started as union busters and slave hunters.

Like we know the origin. Big Know. They don't hide it, they just misrepresent the truth to justify their bigoted class biases. Same thing with things like vagrancy laws

What I was taught in criminal justice classes that broken windows theory is if some place looks easy to break into its more likely to be broken into.

Sounds like fairly decent logic. For example I've known people to get adt security or whatever long enough to get that little sign that says house protected by adt to deter criminals.

I'm gonna be open ears though and open minded. How are the cops abusing this?

I'm not claiming they ain't

Sufferedphoneix posted...

What I was taught in criminal justice classes that broken windows theory is if some place looks easy to break into its more likely to be broken into.

Sounds like fairly decent logic. For example I've known people to get adt security or whatever long enough to get that little sign that says house protected by adt to deter criminals.

I'm gonna be open ears though and open minded. How are the cops abusing this?

I'm not claiming they ain't

All the theory says it's that minor signs of crime, like broken windows, jaywalking, littering, etc, encourage more serious crimes. So subscribers to the theory support cops cracking down on minor bs. Which of course leads to increased police encounters.

"Broken windows" basically means "never treat crime like it's not important." If you let slide low-level crime that has a small impact then you're on a slippery slope to more severe forms of disorder.

The literal interpretation is "if you don't fix the broken windows then people will start to think it's okay to break more" (referring to throwing rocks). Signs of civil disorder, even little ones, gradually convinces the community to commit more and more of it (because who's stopping us if no one says anything it's assumed permissible), which deteriorates the entire moral structure. So enforce the little laws (jaywalking, walking around with an open container, etc.) so that everyone is constantly reminded of the tolerance in play.

The problem with this is a) cops who try to use this as a justification for prejudgment and bigotry spending more time enforcing those little things on a specific population and b) having laws that target things with such low social impact (like smoking or carrying weed in public) that the sorts of things you can't let slide are harmful to the public's relationship with law enforcement. You want laws that are fairly easy to understand by most why they're being enforced, even if they're bothered by why it's being enforced on them. When laws are being enforced simply because they exist and present no actual public safety/peace keeping concerns it makes the idea that stopping the small stuff to prevent the big stuff look nitpicky and martial.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

What I was taught in criminal justice classes that broken windows theory is if some place looks easy to break into its more likely to be broken into.

Sounds like fairly decent logic. For example I've known people to get adt security or whatever long enough to get that little sign that says house protected by adt to deter criminals.

I'm gonna be open ears though and open minded. How are the cops abusing this?

I'm not claiming they ain't

The theory goes like this: One Broken Window leads to more broken Windows on an exponential scale. If you allow vandalism to take place then it will lead to more vandalism. Ergo, you need to aggressively punish people who vandalize even if it's only a small amount of damage because one broken window will lead to more broken Windows.

Now just apply this logic to all petty crime. It basically is a police theory to let cops have carte blanche in how they treat any suspects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/3/AAKOcSAAE4IT.jpg https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/4/AAKOcSAAE4IU.jpg

Highlighted some things.

lilORANG posted...

All the theory says it's that minor signs of crime, like broken windows, jaywalking, littering, etc, encourage more serious crimes. So subscribers to the theory support cops cracking down on minor bs. Which of course leads to increased police encounters.

Ok. Not what I was taught in college

BUT I work in a prison and we kept being told sweat the small stuff and the bigger stuff takes care of itself. From personal expierence that is bullshit. I sweat the small stuff cause my rank stays on my ass about it and what I've noticed the other small stiff takes care of itself. Like they will go out of their way to follow rules I've never even enforced like ever cause they are scare I will write em up. (I only harp on rules that I get chewed out over or ones I actually see the importance in) but no they wanna do something bigger like stab someone? Theybdont give a fuck that I made them follow th3 more petty rules. They still gonna do it.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

The theory goes like this: One Broken Window leads to more broken Windows on an exponential scale. If you allow vandalism to take place then it will lead to more vandalism. Ergo, you need to aggressively punish people who vandalize even if it's only a small amount of damage because one broken window will lead to more broken Windows.

Now just apply this logic to all petty crime. It basically is a police theory to let cops have carte blanche in how they treat any suspects.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

Now if we are talking just punishing a particular crime to get someone to stop doing that particular crime it does sometimes work.

Personally I don't go straight to the harshest punishment I can give them. First I talk to them tell em they can't be doing that and warn them I will get harder on them if they continue. On petty shit at least

I've had success in this area. But I work in a prison they are constantly monitored unlike on the streets so that may cause a difference

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Now if we are talking just punishing a particular crime to get someone to stop doing that particular crime it does sometimes work.

Personally I don't go straight to the harshest punishment I can give them. First I talk to them tell em they can't be doing that and warn them I will get harder on them if they continue. On petty shit at least

I've had success in this area. But I work in a prison they are constantly monitored unlike on the streets so that may cause a difference

That's how I find most good people handle it. Including my Best friend and boyfriend but usually people are still given quotas in order to force people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Your mileage may vary depending on different factors.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

That's how I find most good people handle it. Including my Best friend and boyfriend but usually people are still given quotas in order to force people to do things they otherwise wouldn't. Your mileage may vary depending on different factors.

Yeah they harp on us to write up inmates. And I probably hold a record for writing inmates up but it's a mix of serious Shit and I just got tired of having to tell em every fucking day.

Nit sure if true but I heard the quota thing was bullshit with cops. Heard it was more like if John writes on average 25 tickets a week and Bob only writes 5 they are gonna ask Bob wtf is up with that

Sure different departments operate different though

It's also worth noting this is just one of many reasons why ACAB. There is also the power and influence of police unions, their racist history and the militarization of police as well.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

It's also worth noting this is just one of many reasons why ACAB. There is also the power and influence of police unions, their racist history and the militarization of police as well.

Let me defer to you here then: I hate crime and in a "justice needs to be served" sort of way (not a "crime is a sign of a deeper cancer we aren't properly addressing as a society"). I acknowledge the other point of view but to me the moral component of "do not do things to others that makes their life worse and we need consequences for those who can't understand that," overrides any desire to troubleshoot why people have resorted to living lawlessly. I struggle to live at peace thinking that we need to be gentler with those who act out of line when the depravity and ruthlessness that can spawn from the criminal mindset is so evident so what is the right way forward?

The broken windows theory put police officers in a positive light.

So it's obviously a right-wing take. ACAB isn't a conservative talking point.

This was posted only half-sarcastically.

It's a stupid take. If it happens to be right wing, on well.

I acknowledge the other point of view but to me the moral component of "do not do things to others that makes their life worse and we need consequences for those who can't understand that," overrides any desire to troubleshoot why people have resorted to living lawlessly.

This is complicated. Very few people think there should be 0 consequences. There is a lot of debate on what those consequences should be.

Secondly this is proportional harm. How much damage did I do vs how much damage to me is done in retribution. A broken can be repaired quickly, being mistreated by police can last a very long time.

Finally there is who is being harmed. If the house belongs to a terrible person who justifiably hurts others, a bit of crime unto them is probably ok.

I struggle to live peacefully thinking that we need to be gentler with those who act out of line when the depravity and ruthlessness that can spawn from the criminal mindset is so evident so what is the right way forward?

No idea what you're talking about here. There is a vast swath of difference between Joe blow the crack head doing crack on a sidewalk then Harry Murderpants who really likes murder.

That's why ACAB and defund the police is mostly aimed at beat cops and less aimed at investigators for violent crimes. Beat Cops are an active danger and we know they cause more problems then they solve. Broken Windows policing causes more problems then it solves. It does nothing to prevent these things from happening and only adds to the hurt.

So what's the solution? Wealth redistribution, community outreach, less cop patrols. More money towards solving the systemic issue then retribution which does not help. I'm not saying no money towards justice, just less then what we have and a change in priorities

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

So what's the solution? Wealth redistribution, community outreach, less cop patrols. More money towards solving the systemic issue then retribution which does not help. I'm not saying no money towards justice, just less then what we have and a change in priorities

*insert "stop breaking the law, asshole" meme from Liar, Liar here*

Half-joking

Is the primary function of the police to maintain social order, or to fight crime?

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

This is complicated. Very few people think there should be 0 consequences. There is a lot of debate on what those consequences should be.

Secondly this is proportional harm. How much damage did I do vs how much damage to me is done in retribution. A broken can be repaired quickly, being mistreated by police can last a very long time.

Finally there is who is being harmed. If the house belongs to a terrible person who justifiably hurts others, a bit of crime unto them is probably ok.

No idea what you're talking about here. There is a vast swath of difference between Joe blow the crack head doing crack on a sidewalk then Harry Murderpants who really likes murder.

That's why ACAB and defund the police is mostly aimed at beat cops and less aimed at investigators for violent crimes. Beat Cops are an active danger and we know they cause more problems then they solve. Broken Windows policing causes more problems then it solves. It does nothing to prevent these things from happening and only adds to the hurt.

Actually those people who just do crack on the street aren't as minor a problem as you make it sound. It's mostly mental illness and homelessness but those sorts of things do need to be controlled for peoples' safety. Isolating people from doing hard drugs in public spaces does serve a greater good, even if I also agree that treating the person as an addict instead of a criminal is more fruitful.

Take these broken windows
and learn to lie again

Solid_Sonic posted...

Actually those people who just do crack on the street aren't as minor a problem as you make it sound. It's mostly mental illness and homelessness but those sorts of things do need to be controlled for peoples' safety. Isolating people from doing hard drugs in public spaces does serve a greater good, even if I also agree that treating the person as an addict instead of a criminal is more fruitful.

Exactly!! That's why special clinics where they are safe to shoot up are the best. Prisons just create more problems and doesn't solve why Joe Blow turned to crack to begin with. At least at drug clinics Joe Blow is safer and there are resources to get him clean. Prison exacerbates the issue and just leads to more crime in the future.

So how about this, we pull off s few cops for Joe Blow patrol where their goals are to get them off the street and to one of these places. Oh wait we can't do that because then it would be "supporting drug use"

And we can't get Joe Blow more money so he doesn't have to shoot up on the street cause that's socialism.

Blah blah blah. Same song and dance.

I think the difference in view I have is that maybe less enforcement is good but that comes in the form of raising the ceiling of what doesn't need to be enforced and conscientious and proactive staffing of law enforcement (non-police, albeit unbiased and not strictly looking out for civilian interest, oversight is of utmost necessity). The level and consistency of enforcement should not change, it's mindful enforcement that I want to see.

Also, if I'm being frank, I think we need to make it okay in law enforcement (maybe even overall but certainly in law enforcement) to come out (in a safe space) and say when an officer feels like they're nurturing some kind of bias and prejudgment that is being spurred by their work. You need to know when someone has seen too much of something that it's tainting their ability to conduct fair policing. Instead it all just goes unspoken and eventually embeds itself as a subconscious reaction that festers as skewed policing (officers who are so far gone that they'd deny they don't discriminate but it's not true).

Solid_Sonic posted...

I think the difference in view I have is that maybe less enforcement is good but that comes in the form of raising the ceiling of what doesn't need to be enforced and conscientious and proactive staffing of law enforcement (non-police, albeit unbiased and not strictly looking out for civilian interest, oversight is of utmost necessity). The level and consistency of enforcement should not change, it's mindful enforcement that I want to see.

How do you define level and consistency? Cause police are inconsistent as all hell and I would love to see more consistency on the side of major crimes. Only 6% of Rapists and 50% of all murderers see the inside of a prison cell is generally a pretty shocking statistic. I would rather see less Joe Blow and more Harry Murderpants behind bars.

When I say "level and consistency" I mean don't scale back what someone should be trained to do as a response because we need better policing and incident response.

For example demanding someone get out of their car because a search is needed for contraband (like real contraband not a bit of marijuana but "felon with a gun" sort of thing). If they are being uncooperative after being asked then that officer should be allowed to force the individual out of their car and into cuffs for detainment until such time that no charges need to be pressed. Assuming the officer is properly trained and knows what they're looking for because of genuine markers that someone is trying to be criminally deceptive I would rather that be the response than finding some sort of midpoint that is "more fair" to the suspect. Because if hesitating as a result of attempting a less drastic measure results in that guy tearing off and instigating a chase then that was the wrong call, no mincing words.

Also I get the impression that "resisting arrest" is being seen as something that should no longer be an offense by those calling for law enforcement reform. That standing up for yourself when presented with an "unnecessary" cuffing/detainment is not a crime, even though I see why there need to be consequences meted out for not obeying lawful orders.

Yes its a right-wing take. Also Blue Bloods is one of the most blatant pieces of copaganda media to ever exist.

MrToothHasYou posted...

Yes its a right-wing take. Also Blue Bloods is one of the most blatant pieces of copaganda media to ever exist.

Yeah, well, I also watch On Patrol: Live.

After years of study and work in the legalish field, this is my conclusion. Our policing is broken because our police are broken. Nobody complains about having too many doctors because doctors are there to help you. In a perfect world, having more police in high crime areas would be great because they'd protect citizens. In reality our police have no idea what it means to serve, instead walking around with massive egos, escalating encounters, and generally being a menace. There is no effort made to correct and make changes to these behaviors.

So yeah, we can talk theory. But theories generally assume the police are competent and actually work. Ours don't.

Seems like it's one of the most obvious cases of mistaking correlation for causation. Often correlating two imperfect indicators of the same underlying factor. But not super well read here. Would be open to changing my mind with experimental evidence of some sort.

COVxy posted...

Seems like it's one of the most obvious cases of mistaking correlation for causation. Often correlating two imperfect indicators of the same underlying factor. But not super well read here. Would be open to changing my mind with experimental evidence of some sort.

I think there is another factor but it seems true to me based on another theory as well most crimes are a crime of opportunity. Person didnr even consider it till they saw what looked like a sure fire success. Add that with these easy targets are typically in poverty stricken areas where crime tends to be higher.

When it comes to breaking and entering that particular crime does seem to be done more by people not doing so hot financially

Yes. Broken windows is a theory but it is one pretty much universally expounded by Republicans.

Fortunately its been pretty discredited not that that would ever keep a Republican from being intrigued by a bad idea.

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

Broken Windows was based on scientific study that says the exact opposite of what people who espouse Broken Windows policing.

It is literally just another form of social control and minority suppression used by anyone who thinks we need more cops.

It is 100% the fault of grifters and racists and we know what the origin is as much as we know how police departments started as union busters and slave hunters.

Like we know the origin. Big Know. They don't hide it, they just misrepresent the truth to justify their bigoted class biases. Same thing with things like vagrancy laws

Link to the study? I'm actually curious. I know the broken windows philosophy is mostly bullshit but I never knew the study itself directly contradicted what right wing pundits have to say about it.

ai123 posted...

Is the primary function of the police to maintain social order, or to fight crime?

The US embraced the former hard core during Reconstruction. Policing in America has been brutal ever since.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

What I was taught in criminal justice classes that broken windows theory is if some place looks easy to break into its more likely to be broken into.

I hope you've gone to the registrar since you posted this and demanded your money back for the credit hours you wasted in a class teaching that.

Buy better windows. Its not the 50s/60s any more. People with assault rifles can shoot them out any time.

Solid_Sonic posted...

Also I get the impression that "resisting arrest" is being seen as something that should no longer be an offense by those calling for law enforcement reform (or at least dramatically changing what it constitutes). That standing up for yourself when presented with an "unnecessary" cuffing/detainment is not a crime, even though I see why there need to be consequences meted out for not obeying lawful orders.

We'd need to look closely at the number of resisting arrest charges that get filed. The standard accusation is that any refusal to immediately comply with an order is to be slammed with resisting arrest and a host of other, relatively minor bullshit charges that stack up.

Also, cops assume any order the give is lawful. And advice given to victims is, all too often, "Jist comply, survive, and complain to the supervisor," as if that is ever going to happen or be a viable solution.

How the charge of resisting arrest is leveraged and applied needs to be put under a microscope for debate over whether it can or should be used, given the allegations of how police abuse it as a tactic against people to enforce compliance to any order, lawful or not.

SayHeyyShohei posted...

Link to the study? I'm actually curious. I know the broken windows philosophy is mostly bullshit but I never knew the study itself directly contradicted what right wing pundits have to say about it.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:TJp73elKaAQJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33#d=gs_qabs&t=1695916782904&u=%23p%3DTJp73elKaAQJ

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/1/AAKOcSAAE4Vt.jpg

Just in case the link is weird. It's a PDF you can read. These were the results of the findings from the experimenters. You can skip to the bottom. Here is the quote though

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/2/AAKOcSAAE4Vu.png

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:TJp73elKaAQJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33#d=gs_qabs&t=1695916782904&u=%23p%3DTJp73elKaAQJ

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/1/AAKOcSAAE4Vt.jpg

Just in case the link is weird. It's a PDF you can read. These were the results of the findings from the experimenters. You can skip to the bottom. Here is the quote though

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/4/2/AAKOcSAAE4Vu.png

Lmao nice, thank you.

Chuds continue to fail at everything including their down damn philosophies

Zimbardo isn't the one who started the theory and he is more-or-less a charlatan, tbh.

COVxy posted...

Zimbardo isn't the one who started the theory and he is more-or-less a charlatan, tbh.

No, he wasn't the start. The person who started it misinterpreted his work to prove "broken windows" policing.

Wilson and Kelling used a wrong interpretation of Zimbardo's work in order to prove their case

DnDer posted...

I hope you've gone to the registrar since you posted this and demanded your money back for the credit hours you wasted in a class teaching that.

I trust a college professor more than random people on a dying website.

It was criminology class which covers theories on why people commit crime.

There was also a theory that the majority of crimes like theft/shoplifting are a case of it looked too easy to do so they went for it and that those people aren't inherently criminals. (As in they'd never plan to do shit like that) Which is a similar theory

There was the theory which iirc was backed up by statistics that most break ins are done by people that have been in your house before. Basically cause they already know what you have and where it is. Anything hidden you might have they find is a bonus but they where likely just after the expensive electronics or guns etc they know you have. This one I feel contradicts broken window theory a tad but hey these are all theories not facts

That last one I've almost seen in action. Was hanging at a friend's house and his cousins where planning a break in on another dudes house cause they knew he had easily over 10k dollars worth of shit.

I actually feel I deterred them cause they where afraid it would be obvious it was them cause few people knew about the stuff and I told them to trash the whole house to make it seem like they had to search for stuff to steal. They wanted me in on the little heist but I said no. At that point I knew too much I guess and they where afraid I'd snitch

The point is that whatever you might think of the theory aside it was;

• wildly predatory in how it was used to victimize minorities and the poor. Or more specifically individuals who couldnt defend themselves, and
• could neither produce or statistically show how it would lead to the theoretical goal of healing a country in the depths of a major recession. Coincidentally these symptoms of decay like broken windows largely went away by itself once the economy recovered.

divot1338 posted...

The point is that whatever you might think of the theory aside it was;
* wildly predatory in how it was used to victimize minorities and the poor. Or more specifically individuals who couldnt defend themselves, and
* could neither produce or statistically show how it would lead to the theoretical goal of healing a country in the depths of a major recession. Coincidentally these symptoms of decay like broken windows largely went away by itself once the economy recovered.

Naturally they didn't teach how it victimized people and I'm also white and not a cop. So please educate me on how it victimized people maybe I missed a post that already explained. I just took the theory at face value that if your house looked easy to break into it was more likely to be broken into. Professor explained that's why metal bars over windows tried becoming a thing in some areas.

I'm serious though educate me. I'm willing to listen and learn rather than argue. I won't even try to make a rebuttal. At most I'll just say I don't agree and move on.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

So please educate me on how it victimized people maybe I missed a post that already explained.

Impoverished and minority communities are the most likely communities to exhibit signs of "urban decay," like broken windows. They're too poor to repair their properties, which makes them too poor to move out, because no one will buy properties that can't be kept up. Redlining and segregation still exist today.

Start with that.

Now, cops are told that where you see little crimes, like broken windows, you'll find bigger crime. And that those neighborhoods have to be policed harder in order to maintain order. We're up to an increased police presence in neighborhoods that have already been victimized by police, historically, just by virtue of what the police were founded to do, before the Constitution was even signed.

Where do we go from just basic over-policing of minority and impoverished communities? We go to police training that teaches cops that every interaction in Those Neighborhoods (tm) is hostile and confrontational, so you (generic, collective pronoun to reflect cops) have to step it up extra in order to make sure they're kept in line and you "get home safe at night."

Cops go in hostile to over-ppliced neighborhoods. They're aggressive and do things like over-charge crimes, call any opposition "resisting" (whether arrest or a lawful order, even if the person hadn't been arrested or detained at that point or the order was even remotely lawful) to throw additional charges on, or just find crimes to charge that they would ignore elsewhere or give stern warnings to. (Kevin Whyte, I'm the suburbs is caught throwing rocks at windows and gets a lecture and taken to his parents for punishment. Jamal Blacke gets taken into custody and fingerprinted for the same exact behavior. We see it time and again.)

Now, we have people being removed from these minority and impoverished communities for petty crimes. Everything from bare possession for personal use (the war on drugs was literally engineered to target these neighborhoods) to... broken windows. And because we know how the justice system works in regards to poor and minority people, we know that they're now going to have a harder time keeping their job ("no call, no show, you're fired; don't care if you won your case and had charges expunged, get out") or finding one because we refuse to ban the box.

Fewer income earners in a neighborhood means less neighborhood income which means less repaired windows (the idiom standing in for any minor crimes reflecting "urban blight"). Less repaired windows means more cops because they have to keep these neighborhoods in line.

And thus the spiral/cycle of abuse of minority and impoverished communities continues. Over and over.

And all is as it should be, according to the white-favoring institutional powers that be that caused this problem in the first place.

"Broken windows" is just one part of a massive system deliberately designed to keep certain classes of people away from the monied (white) elite. It's also one of the most visible symptoms of the problem, and thus easiest to call bullshit on.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I just took the theory at face value

You school should have offered credit hours in critical thinking/inquiry. I don't blame you, but the school you went to did you dirty again, if you're just accepting things at face value and not asking questions. Even (especially) of your professors and other authority figures.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Add that with these easy targets are typically in poverty stricken areas where crime tends to be higher.

Look back at what's been explained and see why there might be a correlation. Maybe the crime numbers are higher because more cops are doing cop stuff in those neighborhoods to keep the for-profit prison industrial complex in business, whether they know it or not.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Yeah they harp on us to write up inmates. And I probably hold a record for writing inmates up but it's a mix of serious s*** and I just got tired of having to tell em every f***ing day.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I'm also white and not a cop.

...cop enough for most people to call you a cop. You're part of the institution that's engineering these problems.

What do those minor write-ups do to a person you're overseeing? And have you ever looked at the demographics across your team as to who is being written up, why, and how that might impact their ability to rehabilitate and get out sooner (at all)?

Some of the stuff people in your position are told to do by the owners of those prisons is directly influencing how quickly you'll see them again, and see them removed from their communities, leaving how many other broken windows to keep the cycle turning.

We all need to work. I'm not going to begrudge you your job. But this can be a great inflection point for you to realize the impact, large or small, you can have on that cycle in your day to day decisions with those people behind bars.

Solid_Sonic posted...

That isn't right but you would have to agree it's not the policy's fault but the kinds of people enforcing it in that case.

Gonna ignore everything else in this topic before posting to focus on this: you should think about what enforcement looks like when creating policy. Enforcement is what the policy will look like in action.

DnDer posted...

You school should have offered credit hours in critical thinking/inquiry. I don't blame you, but the school you went to did you dirty again, if you're just accepting things at face value and not asking questions. Even (especially) of your professors and other authority figures

I actually didn't wanna take the class. Family was pressuring me into college and I knew it was a easy A for me. I was getting financial aid so it's not like I was wasting my money. I ended up in this line of work cause unfortunately it's the best paying job here.

Also I had two professors one was a former prison guard the other a active captain in the police department. They wherent gonna say shit that would make cops look bad. And being professors I assume verbally skilled enough to make their arguments sound good. If there was any chance they'd be more honest it's cause they where both black and came from higher crime areas. But in thr end I simply didn't really wanna be there. Only job that remotely interested me in criminal justice was forensics (and no I don't care for those tv shows) but once I learned math was involved I said nope cause that was my only weak area in school

DnDer posted...

What do those minor write-ups do to a person you're overseeing? And have you ever looked at the demographics across your team as to who is being written up, why, and how that might impact their ability to rehabilitate and get out sooner (at all

Yeah the write ups hurt them as it's a punishment it's supposed to. I let a lot of shit slide. If I write one up they have been a real pain in my ass.

I'll tell you what the write ups do for me though. They start following the rules. And word spreads so others start following the rules too literally last night had one that wouldn't go to his bunk when it was lights out. Told him 3 times and he just kept ignoring me. I said "aight I don't mind doing paperwork" he went to his bunk right away. Now I don't really give a damn if they go to bed or not but my bosses do and they watch the cameras. My biggest peeve is making me look bad at my job. Otherwise I really don't care what they do as long as it's not violent or something that can easily lead to violence

As said I let a lot of stuff slide. That same dude I caught smoking and I just gave him shit for not having a better look out.

DnDer posted...

Look back at what's been explained and see why there might be a correlation. Maybe the crime numbers are higher because more cops are doing cop stuff in those neighborhoods to keep the for-profit prison industrial complex in business, whether they know it or not

Fortunately I don't work for a for profit prison I dislike the idea of those. Yeah the state penns get money off the inmates but it's not their labor (a lot here don't have jobs) they just get tax money for them being there. Which a hefty chunk is for the inmate themselves food medical needs etc. But they do make some profit sure

As for the first part ok yeah I can see that. Logically a cop should patrol a area that statistically has more crime but I understand cops abuse the hell out of their power so I see where yall are coming from.

Thanks for taking the time and not being antagonistic or a asshat about it

Trust me too working in a prison is a eye opener. It is very heavily black EXCEPT the dorms where we keep the chomos..

I remember we got a new transport of inmates to fill up a dorm we emptied and it was 80 percent white and even I was like wtf this you don't see everyday.

Most whites in this prison are sexual predators or meth dealers

I also heavily disagree with people in for drugs. Hell even duis unless they hurt or killed someone. I feel they need a special other place to put them (forced rehab maybe?) cause you take drug addicts and alcoholics and out them in prison they might pick up a life of crime. Seen it happen. Dude in for multiple duis and he ends up in a gang. Ms13 and they ain't a gang to take lightly. He joined them cause he needed protection. He was being bullied by others cause he's small

Now that this class has been on my mind I did remember something. We actually did cover systematic racism as a cause or crime. It just wasn't brought up in the section about broken windows theory and it was presented more as a fact than just a theory.

Think it even did bring up cocaine being brought in to help keep the black communities down.

Only criminal justice class I actually enjoyed was organized crime. Naturally that one I'd like cause I was a straight a student in history and that's basically what that class was but for gangs. Learned some real interesting shit but that's off topic

Sufferedphoneix posted...

What I was taught in criminal justice classes that broken windows theory is if some place looks easy to break into its more likely to be broken into.

You should ask for your money back.

xGhostchantx posted...

You should ask for your money back.

No they taught me legitimately what the theory states. Wasn't in the class description to go into how it's been abused. I'm sure if someone brought it up the teacher woulda discussed it cause she liked open discussion but nobody did and I already explained why I didn't.

Plus ask for what money back. They technically paid me lol. I got financial aid and they gave me 1000 bucks for expenses related to school. I had none. All i needed was a pen and some paper for taking notes all of whicg i already had. I asked if I had to pay it back they said no and I point blank told them they where fools to give 1000 bucks to a 20 year old when the classes basically requires next to nothing to be bought.

I partied for a straight month off that money

Ironic side note about the class. Only dude that wanted to be a cop (at least only one who said he wanted to) was the only one with a criminal record.