Wilson and Kelling Flashcards
What type of research is Wilson and Kelling?
a research article
What is the basis of this article about?
how police foot patrols influence the rates of crime in New Jersey (USA)
what was the response from police officers regarding this increased foot patrol?
many did not like it - saw it as a reduction of police mobility, forced outside + hard work & seen as a punishment in some forces
How long did this programme last?
5 years
What was the outcome for crime rates after the 5 years?
no decrease in crime rates
How did the programme show positive results?
- residents felt safer & believed that crime had been reduced
- less people at home behind locked doors
- officers had higher morale and more positive attitude towards citizens
what were some of the informal rules set by the officers within the neighbourhoods?
- drunks and addicts could sit on stoops but not lie down
- drinking allowed in side streets but not main streets
- bottles had to be in a paper bag
- begging not allowed
- assumption that the business owners were right in any disputes
what theory links to this article?
broken windows theory
how does broken windows theory link to the article?
community disorder leads to more crime
What were some of the drawbacks of this article?
- some patrols not sent to high crime and low crime areas - deemed as a waste of resources
- reduced size of departments = less patrols available
what is foot patrol?
police walking around streets
did foot patrol prevent crime?
no
how might crime prevention be different for ‘regulars’ compared to ‘strangers’?
regulars know their place / the informal rules to follow
how has the role of police changed?
went from maintaining order to fighting crime
evaluate according to reliability
strengths:
- zero tolerance - based off IRL stats from NYPD records
weakness:
- naturalistic observation = lack of control means cannot be standardised therefore not replicable = less reliable
evaluate according to validity
strength:
- population validity: entire city of Newark observed = roughly 300,000 people in 1980s = likely to be representative
- observations more valid than self report
- zimabardo field experiment = ecologically valid
weakness:
- researcher bias - subjective observation
- lacks ecological validity / mundane realism as the foot patrols were likely to act different knowing they were being observed = demand characteristics
- zimbardo lacks control over EVs = no causality
evaluate according to data
both collected therefore has strengths and weaknesses of both
e.g., quan = crime stats at being and end of 5 year period
evaluate according to samples and ethnocentrism
strengths:
- broken down cities can apply broken windows theory
weakness:
- USA - Western perspective on how to prevent crime = not applicable or generalisable to other cultures e.g., collectivist cultures may offer support rather than policing
- zero tolerance designed for western cultures
evaluate according to methodology
strength:
- longitudinal (5 years) = changes over time (long term effectiveness can be measured)
weakness:
- changes to police systems make harder to maintain so many foot patrols each year
evaluate according to ethics and socially sensitive
strength:
mostly ethical - no deception, no PFH issues (if anything made people feel more safe) - no informed consent needed (in natural own space)
- not decieved or directly manipulated \
- NOT ss as helps people from ruining own lives by committing serious crimes
weakness:
- increase CCTV = no informed consent
- political consequences of zero tolerance policy = stigmas lead to certain groups being targeted - violation of civil rights
evaluate according to usefulness
strength:
- working with police to better understand how to prevent crime e.g., Newmans defensible space
weaknesses:
- kelling lacks validity so should be applied cautiously
evaluate according to scientific
strength:
- quan data
- deterministic
weakness:
- qual data / research article = subjective
- not standardised = not replicable
evaluate according to reductionism vs holism
reductionist:
- there are other variables besides maintaining social order that could explain criminal behaviour e.g., in NYC decreased drug use saw decrease in murders
holistic:
- presented with multiple factors to prevent crime such as Broken windows, foot patrols, and informal rules
evaluate according to determinism vs free will
determinism:
- suggests every instance of anti social behaviour will progress into serious crime
- engagement with foot patrol officers determined by amount of crime in neighbourhood
- scientific
free will:
- free will to interact with foot patrols / follow the informal rules
evaluate according to nature vs nurture
nature:
- natural instinct to trust authority
- defensible space = evolutionary to protect territory
nurture:
- protecting territory has to be learned
- less fear of crime due to change in social context (increase police presence)
evaluate according to dispositional vs situational
dispositional:
- individual factors make a person more or less likely to look after shared spaces e.g., a courtyard
- engaging with foot patrols = individual choice
- self restraint
situational:
- defensible space suggests changes to situation impact crime
- ultimately due to changes in social context e.g., more foot patrols
