Having spent more than ten years in federal law enforcement before entering higher education, I have seen Dr. Kelling's theory in action. Through his work with both the New York Transit Authority and the (former) Metropolitan District Commission in Massachusetts, neighborhoods are cleaner, residents are less fearful to walk the streets, and lasting and effective partnerships have been formed between public safety officials and the communities they serve. Those who criticize Kelling's theory seem to do so on the basis of a "lack of empirical evidence." While it may be true that his methods border on applied sociology, so what? I would much rather see criminal justice theory stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the works of reformers such as Addams, DuBois and Mills, than align myself with the "armchair" approach of Compte and his contemporaries.

I could argue that much of the "issue" with respect to Broken Windows Theory stems from the adoption of the buzzwords "community policing" by many local departments without striving to eschew the ethnocentric overidentification that often plagues those in the subculture of policing.

However, I would rather close with an apt quotation from Hirschi (in Kempf, 1990): "Avoid the fallacy fallacy [sic]. When a theorist or methodologist tells you you can not do something, do it anyway. Breaking the rules can be fun!"

-- Hank J. Brightman, criminal justice program coordinator, Saint Peter's College (posted 2/20, 11:05 a.m., U.S. Eastern time)

previous response

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.