Broken window theory and crime

Ronald Mason, GUEST COLUMNIST

The broken window theory first came to prominence in March 1982. It was advanced by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kettering in an article published by the Atlantic Monthly.

The theory has its foundation in that on becoming aware of the first small infringement, it must be tackled. Failure to take the appropriate intervention will lead to an even greater infringement. You will note that the sight of one broken glass pane does not immediately conjure images of decay. However, if an additional five more panes are broken in the same window, one can be forgiven if the structure is viewed as being in decay.

Jamaica had sometime ago evidenced the first broken pane. Littering the streets, urinating in public, the open sale of 'pirated' movies and music on our streets. For practical purposes, although all of the above practices are illegal, we tend to treat them as signs of mere indiscipline in the wider society.

We have not had a dedicated, targeted programme to reinstill discipline at all levels of society. Could it have been that we were seduced by the slogan 'Jamaica, no problem, man'? In fact, we were seeing the first signs of the problem. Now, we are overwhelmed by the problem.

DISREGARD FOR LIFE

We look around at the wanton, callous disregard for life. Beheadings, drive-by shootings, arson, kidnapping and major fraud schemes. Now, anything goes. All the glass panes are broken. This is no longer widespread indiscipline, but fast-approaching anarchy.

It has been said that we all are corrupt and commit criminal activity. For the vast majority of Jamaicans, the crimes we commit are garden variety. Pay someone to expedite a free government service. We give a wink and nod to the left or right to the police at the traffic stop. We seek to expedite the building plan approval process at the parish council by letting off something with the right contact.

However, the line is also breached when someone who bounces you on a bus ride, or scratches your luxury car, is shot. The question becomes, are we currently aware that criminal activity is all-pervasive, not just indiscipline or one broken window pane, anymore?

We are fully aware of the cost to society. Five per cent of our potential GDP is lost. A world ranking in the top five most murderous societies on earth, and we are not in a state of war. Private security companies, registered and unregistered, flourish. The burglar-bar manufacturers have so proliferated that the scrap metal industry can target their production in another criminal enterprise.

We are desperate for practical solutions. How about going back to the basics? Fix the first broken pane! Will the police start to prosecute the indiscriminate littering of the land? Prosecute the public urinating on the streets? Go to any principal town and prosecute those who sell the bootleg movies and music recordings?

How about restoring to the society a feeling that we have been undisciplined for too long. This must be supported by complementary action. Jamaica has not built one new prison since Independence. It has been provided for, proposed and spoken of, but alas, there's been no implementation. Or was it just a fleeting thought?

What if we had a study done on the comparative effectiveness of policing using more motorcycles, as against motor vehicles? Think of the acquisition cost, manoeuvrability, efficiency of operating, and the access to the narrow tracks, lanes and gullies of this country.

To make this broken window work, we need other tools. The anti-gang legislation. The DNA legislation. Wide-scale CCTV deployment. But what we probably need most is the State's willingness to implement.

The Budget must reflect the national desire to tackle crime. We have needed J$5 billion annually, for some two to three years, according to the president of the Jamaican Bar Association, to begin the implementation of the judicial reform project. Where is it?

We need to have members of parliament reside in their constituencies. They must know what is happening on the ground and be exposed to the ravages of crime from which their constituents suffer. Recall the chatter when the minister of national security was a person reported, disputedly, as being victim of crime in Portland. Ah, the media were abuzz. Just think what the potential for action against crime would be if Andrew Holness and Omar Davies lived in their respective constituencies. I think the citizens would appreciate the increased security presence.

While we indulge in the musings, remember, there is virtually no new training and no new jobs for those who would abandon the life of crime. There's also a very low possibility of being apprehended for the crime committed. We are unlikely to be serious about tackling crime as long as there are still some glass panes in the window that haven't yet been broken.

Ronald Mason is an immigration attorney-at-law and mediator. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and nationsagenda@gmail.com.