THE BROKEN WINDOW THEORY
This is an academic theory proposed by social scientists James Q. William and George Kelling in 1982. The academic theory, which first appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, states that signs of disorder in a neighborhood, like a broken window, encourages petty crimes and leads to more serious crimes.
The theory states that visible signs of disorder and misbehavior in an environment encourage further disorder and misbehavior, leading to serious crimes.
The theory was developed to explain the decay of neighborhoods, but is often applied to work and educational environments. George Kelling therefore suggests that “each problem that goes unattended in a given environment affects people’s attitude toward the environment and leads to more problems”.
James Q. Wilson adds that “where there is one broken window there will be many. Low-level disorder must be tackled quickly (mending the broken windows) or else the problems in the area will quickly escalate”
The theory thesis therefore posits that neighborhood disorder increases crime directly and indirectly by undermining neighborhood informal social control.
Philippe Zambardo, a psychologist and a meeting scientist, conducted an experiment in 1969 that later became one of the most famous experiments in the studies of criminology, particularly in social science in general.
He left two cars with unlocked doors and missing number plates in two different areas; one in a poor neighborhood and the other in a rich neighborhood. The passersby in the poor neighborhood started stealing and vandalizing the car within a few minutes, and it was completely destroyed in three days.
It took longer for passersby in the rich neighborhood to start destroying the car windows, before people started breaking more windows and stealing the car. It took the same time as in the poor neighborhood to turn the whole car into scrap within a few days.
Meaning: Some small acts of misbehavior or actions done can grow into big ones and it becomes a behavior. For example, vandalism, loitering, public drinking, jaywalking, and transportation fare evasion, create an urban environment that promotes even more crime and disorder.
That is how our society has accepted small behaviors but they are becoming big problems to our country. For example, the reason we have so many accidents occurring on the roads is because the government officials have failed to be examples to their people. They never care about traffic rules, making the wanainchi to have the same mindset like them. In addition, the reason some of our children grow up with indiscipline is because we compromise on it, giving it chance to eat them up!
Therefore, this is a criminology concept that recommends maintaining and monitoring urban environments to prevent minor crimes, such as vandalism or littering. This monitoring can also stop further crimes and create an environment that encourages economic development.
The theory argues that social and communal order can be restored through a “zero-tolerance policy”. According to this policy, authority figures, such as police, enforce strict rules and arrest or punish offenders of the law without considering the circumstances under which the crimes are committed. The proponents of this theory suggested that “police could prevent more serious crimes by resolving smaller criminal matters and maintaining order”. This is called “The Zero-tolerance Theory”
The most notable use of this theory in policing is in New York City in the 1990s. Under the leadership of Rudy Giuliani, police started to focus on minor crimes as a way to clean up the city. In doing so, they found that they were also able to intercept those who committed major offences as well. The Zero-tolerance policing strategy seemed to be successful, and the answer to the city’s problems as crime rates decreased.
I however find it clear that the “BROKEN WINDOWS, the way it is implemented, ignores the actual broken windows in the neighborhood and picks on the people who are just desperately trying to survive without adequate resources”
As a Law Student, allow me to chip in my Legal opinion on this particular theory.
There is a legal maxim “DE MINIMIS NON CURAT LEX”. This is a maxim pertaining to minimal things. It is a legal general principle that “the law is not concerned with insignificant or minor matters”. This legal history dates back to the fifteenth century, and it is a legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling things.
To this extent, we can see that “The Broken Window Theory” and “De Minimis Non Curat Lex” legal principle are totally divergent, and in total contradiction and conflict.
I personally get confused, and I wonder if this theory and the legal maxim can ever be applied concurrently in the same legal structure or administration. I think it may not be possible, since the two clearly oppose each other.
QUESTIONS:
Having read and understood this article, I am going to ask you a few rhetorical questions, which you may actually answer as you so wish and give me your opinion, for mutual better understanding of this theory and its relevance.
- Can the “Broken Window Theory” be practically applicable in Uganda? If so, is it even ideal and relevant anyway?
- 2. Is the present day moral degeneration and high crime rate attributed to failure of this theory?
- 3. Given authority, would you rather ride and lead or administer on the basis of the above legal maxim? Or the theory itself?
- 4. In your opinion, do you think that effective application of the above theory in any given state or a simple society would cause a positive impact on its status quo?
- 5. Do you think that the application of this theory would amount to abuse of some inherent human rights as provided for under Chapter 4 of the 1995 Constitution? Such as Protection of right to life (Article 22), Respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment (Article 24), Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association (Chapter 29)
NB: The reason I bring in this question is because the principle advocates for suppression of even just the smallest of illegal acts or mere misconduct, which would definitely infringe onto the lives of more or less innocent people.
6. Do you even think that application of this theory would promote social order and peace, and control crimes as it seems to suggest? If so, why? If not, what is the reason for your opinion?
CONCLUSION:
➢ Thank you so much for sparing your time to read this piece of work. My prayer is that its easy for you to comprehend, and that you have learnt something from it.
❖This is written more out of my personal opinion, and so it doesn’t stand as absolute truth. Any criticism towards bettering it is welcome.
I will gladly receive your opinions, questions and all other querries. Otherwise, I look forward to sharing with you more in my subsequent writeups.
▪ For any issues or inquiries, reach out to me on the address below.
KWESIGA EMMANUEL. emmanuelkwesiga2@gmail.com
+0705611739
SCHOOL OF LAW, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
PUBLIC OPINION / FEEDBACK.
After sharing this article to public through my other social media platforms, I was able to get feedback from different individuals, and I have sought for their consent and they have permitted me to share it to the rest of the public in this publication. Below is the response from various individuals.
MR. MUGENDAWALA PAUL, MBChB, KING CEASOR UNIVERSITY.
“Application of the theory would definitely have tangible benefits. However, it is important to look beyond the theoretical broken window. Quite often, the window is not repaired not because of negligence as the theorist insinuates but because of constraints beyond control.
As we apply the theory to community, we must not forget to consider financial, technological, and sometimes geographical constraints that face developing countries like Uganda. This implies that the state or rather individuals should be careful not to overstrain themselves in a perfectionist pursuit of repairing any theoretical broken window.
Sometimes, it is only wise to first fix a window where it has never been before repairing the broken window. In Criminology, for example, better to chase capital offenders than spend time in pursuit of petty criminals if constraints present the implementor with a tough decision to choose one fight”
MR. JOHN MUTSOSHI, LAW SRUDENT, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“I have read your work and it’s a great observation. Personally I do agree with the theory but remember we are dealing with humans who believe that there are greater and smaller sins and smaller sins can be ignored.
I believe in society and as policy makers, we forget the details of events in society and rush to the end results. We always think of a bank robber and don’t ask ourselves how they became bank robbers. I too believe if we tackle small sins / crimes, then we can prevent people from committing big ones because at least it will serve as a deterrent.
Let us now shift to politics; in Uganda, in the case of corruption, we always look out for politicians who steal billions but don’t run after those who steal millions, yet that is how our country loses money. If you add up those small amounts taken at the district and lower government from all districts in Uganda, they make up billions equal to those in higher offices.
So, as we blame those stealing at the top, the best way is to start from the bottom. If we are failing from the grassroots, how shall we stop the big crimes? In Uganda, we dream of battling terrorism when we can’t even offer security to the citizens who are attacked by local people. If we fail in small things, don’t expect us to do better in bigger things”
MS. HANNAH KATIKARA, LAW STUDENT, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“I do not think this theory can ever be applicable in this Uganda. We are a developing country, and something like this requires tools of resources for law enforcement and public service that we clearly don’t have.
Two, it can only work if the community is in on it; there has to be trust between the law enforcers and the people in the community because its always through community engagement that these minor dosorders are realized. In Uganda today, this kind of trust seems not to exist.”
MR. SEGAWA ELVIS WILLIAM, STUDENT, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“I do believe that big things start small, just like in human growth and development. But then much as killing a serpent while it is still young can save one from a venomous big viper one day, it aso tasks us to first look for the eggs of the snake then may break them before they hatch. It’s the same with crime.
But then the practical applicability of the ‘Broken Window Theory’ in Uganda would depend on how it aligns with our country’s cultural cultural context which of course has a lot to it such as what Frantz Fanon terms as “African Self-criticism Tradition”, law enforcement strategies where we see law bending and breaking enforcers, and community involvement which I would not think is easy and possible in Uganda.
While the theory has been implemented in some places with positive results, its relevance and effectiveness in Uganda would require careful examination and adaptation to local circumstances.”
MS. MERCY ANENA, STUDENT, MAKERERE UNIVERSITY.
“The theory is to a greater extent valid, it is clear that disorderly places have registered higher crime rates than the orderly places. You can correlate slums like Kamwokya with high end places like Munyonyo. This is because it is easier to commit crimes where there is no order because chances are that either no one cares, or you will easily escape arrest, since the disorder acts to your advantage. Where there is no order, there is no control, thus criminals feel more daring.
I therefore think the theory is not applicable in the current circumstances. The “Zero-tolerance policy” has to have started from the foundation of leadership. It needs a leader from the onset of his leadership to implement it. The theory is very unrealistic and next to impossible to implement and as you mentioned in your article, it would somehow infringe on peoples’ rights. This is because in order to implement such a policy, suppression would be adopted as a means.
Therefore the theory is more of a fantasy, where you imagine how perfect a state can be if there is Zero-tolerance to crimes, but unfortunately its impossible to implement.
I also believe the theory might be a cause of crime, but it cannot be concluded that it is the only reason as to why crimes are committed. I believe there are more other factors.”
MR. AINOMUGISHA KEVIN, LAW STUDENT, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“As always, in everything, small things do matter. But as for matters of crime, for it to be effectively eradicated from society to the extent of totally no crime, it takes a much bigger consideration from the government and a huge sacrifice from the compliant patriotic citizenry.
The first myth we should get rid of is; ‘it is the duty of the police or army to protect us.’ Even God Himself protects those that protect themselves- so your own security is largely about you. Be that patriotic citizen that easily scans the smallest crime in society and even before calling the cops, you have already bestowed some ‘first aid’.
And lets not preserve crime. Let us fight it at the grass root stages. This may be a call to the parents, let them not ignore the small crimes their children do under the pretext ‘he will grow up one day and stop doing drugs’. This is a sacrifice, and anything totally good must be through sacrifice; be ready to sacrifice even your loved ones who may be criminals”.
MS. DIANA KABEHO, I.T STUDENT, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“At the moment I don’t think that the Broken Window Theory can be practically applicable in Uganda because as a country, we are still developing in various aspects. So when, for instance, the government decides to implement such a policy it would just tear apart what is being fixed.
A case in point, the law enforcers and the people in the communities have always been in a cat and mouse relationship, and for years, adjustments have been made to ease that tension and there has been a significant change in that relationship. So if such a theory is introduced, then we would go back to the times where a police person is seen as an enemy and not as a protector of peace or a friend.
In addition,the resources available can’t allow the policy to be implemented. Imagine if people were to be arrested for these misdemeanors, the prisons will be overwhelmed which would be a problem on its own.
Lastly, these misdemeanors are usually done by juveniles and this could be because of the pressure and influence from friends or unavoidable circumstances. In this case, a warning is better than locking these people up in police cells and prisons.
In my conclusion, the theory makes sense theoretically but if it is to be executed, it would cause more harm than good, most especially in a country like Uganda.”
MR. STEVEN RWAKEIGUNIKA, PROFESSIONAL NURSE AND DIRECTOR, RWAKEIGUNIKA INDUSTRIES (U) LTD.
“I think this theory must be applied because criminals graduate from one stage to another. If a child starts by stealing at home and is not dealt with, he proceeds to rob from the neighborhood and eventually becomes a complete thief, becoming a threat to the community.
This means that if such a child had been punished at an earlier stage, probably he wouldn’t have eventually turned into a typical thief. Rodrigo Duterte, the former president of Philippines (2016–2022) tried the theory, and the crime rate reduced drastically in his nation, although he was a brutal leader.”
MR. BIYINZIKA EMMANUEL, LAW STUDENT, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“The theory is important, for it would enable the country to stop crime at the pre-stage. It doesn’t give room for a simple bad act to develop into a heavy crime. Meaning that if it is applied, we would be in position to stop all crimes at an early stage and therefore, we would reduce crime rates.”
MS. ANZOA THERESA, SOCIAL SCIENCES STUDENT, MAKERERE UNIVERSITY.
“The Broken Window Theory” is exactly explaining extreme continuous occurrence of crimes. This is because society tends to lay a smooth ground for crimes to be continuously committed. Hence, if no measures are put in place to combat this, people will consider and deem it normal, by normalizing crime and deviance.
This will hence put the societal members at a high risk. This catalyzes law breaking and thus shows the weakness of the law enforcing bodies in general. And if crime continues to occur, people shall constantly live under threat, meaning that practically, no one is safe under such circumstances.”
MR. FRED BARONDE, LLB, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
“Yes, the theory can be applicable in Uganda because most of the major crimes committed have escalated from the initial small offences that go unpunished. This gives them an urge and confidence to commit even bigger crimes. Therefore, punishing small offences could be a good deterrent to the big crimes which usually emerge.
Yes, of course this starts with a child in their childhood stages. Parents should adopt a discipline of stopping their children from doing wrong under the disguise of being too young to understand.
Then about the legal maxim in your article, I think it is important and it doesn’t have to be considered. This is because even if it is a child, as long as they have not been coerced, no undue influence, then there should be no defence for wrong doing.
We all have a right to property, and a person for example, who steals from others, is denying them a right to their property. Therefore such a person should not demand for his rights yet he is abusing the rights of others. He should not live at the expense of others.”
ARTICLE BY; KWESIGA EMMANUEL, LAW SCHOOL, UGANDA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY.
+25705611739.
