The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

Once again, someone has taken a "crime related" theory as gospel and is now criticizing something that has not been remotely substantiated by quantifiable data. When Kelling and Wilson wrote "broken windows" they appeared to be offering a plausible explanation, just one aspect, of what leads to increased criminality. However, what they suggested had been suggested 30 years early by Shaw and McKay's Ecology of Crime (Concentric Circles) Theory, in which they attempted to demonstrate how deterioration of a neighborhood opens the door to increased criminality. Their theory still remains mainly unsubstantiated too. One of the biggest problems in criminological thought is the expectation that every theory is correct or can be proven in a relatively short period of time. The fact is, any police officer who has worked a given area for a reasonable amount of time will tell you that numerous factors go into increases and decrease of crime and often it has nothing to do with theory but with societal and police response at the time of highest crisis. Let's face it, if we truly had an answer as to what really works, many criminologists, crime researchers, and perhaps even police officers would be out of a job. Furthermore, it's more fun to speculate and debate than find a true answer. Perhaps 50 years from now we can revisit "broken windows" to see if there was truly relevance and answers to increases or decreases in criminality.

: -- M.L. Dantzker, Assoc Prof, UT Pan America (posted 2/7, 9:10 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.