[sparky_z]

> I've always been confused as to why the broken windows theory presumes that the window is broken because of malicious action.

It doesn't.

> It seems obvious to me that the window was broken accidentally

Are you suggesting that no young vandal has ever broken a window on purpose? I assure you, it happens.

> and as such, the correct response (in police action and otherwise) is to repair the window. Full stop.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. Has anybody ever seriously argued that the police should punish accidental window breaking? Conversely, if a police officer witnesses somebody throw a rock through a window without cause, should he not stop them?

[saraid216]

> It doesn't.

If it doesn't, then why does the theory call for small crimes to be punished?

[potatolicious]

jerf explains it well above - the theory is that the appearance of disorder begets more disorder. Whether that disorder is deliberately caused by bad actors is significant at the micro scale but somewhat moot at the macro scale.

i.e., a window broken by malicious act is a bad thing, but ultimately an accidentally broken window will also contribute to crime. The notion is that the appearance of disorder signals that such laws are poorly enforced, as well as decreases the level of responsibility and ownership people feel towards the place ("this place sucks already, what's one more...")

Note that I don't endorse this particular view ;)

[saraid216]

But punishing small crimes doesn't fix broken windows, so it doesn't actually contribute to the presumed consequence of decreasing disorder.

I mean, let's say that a vandal deliberately broke a window, and this act is witnessed by a police officer. Arresting the vandal doesn't fix the window, so why does the theory call for such an arrest?

[sparky_z]

As potatolicious stated, part of the proposed mechanism by which broken windows contribute to urban decay is that "the appearance of disorder signals that such laws are poorly enforced". Surely, a police officer ignoring the crime as it is being performed in front of them would send this signal even more strongly.

Also, I should point out that the theory doesn't say that an arrest must be made. Maybe they simply intervene and issue a warning. Maybe you record their identity and create a police record of the incident so that the building owner can sue to defray the cost of replacement. Maybe they take the kid back to his parents, so they can offer replace the window. And yes, maybe you arrest them if they've been repeatedly warned in the past or are causing immense property damage. It's all contextual.

The theory just says that the government (not just law enforcement) shouldn't let the little things slide because they lead to bigger problems down the road. You get the most "bang for your buck" by nipping the little things in the bud. You seem to have a warped idea that it means draconian punishments for every infraction, no matter how minor.

[potatolicious]

It doesn't necessarily call for an arrest - either in theory or in practice.

For example, during the height of the Broken Windows implementation in New York, transit agencies had a policy of not allowing a vehicle to leave the depot with graffiti on it. It was obviously impossible to catch all vandals in the act, but by cleaning up graffiti as soon as it is found, it sends the message that not only are their acts futile, but that society has no tolerance for this type of behavior.

So to use your example, if you witness a vandal breaking a window, you may fine him, or arrest him if the behavior is particularly repeated or egregious - but in any case you make sure the window gets fixed ASAP such that the appearance of order may be maintained.