|
|
|
|
|
by saraid216
4183 days ago
|
|
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? |
|
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.