Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment

¶ … Kansas City Preventative Patrol Experiment prove that crime really went down because of police action?

Just because there is a correlation between two factors under study, such as a drop in the crime rate and an increase in neighborhood police presence and monitoring of small infractions, does not necessarily prove causation. A commonly-cited 'fact' is that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug for harder drug use. While it is true that many hard drug users did use marijuana before experimenting with heroin and cocaine and therefore early marijuana use is correlated with later heroin use, this is more due to the fact that users of hard drugs tend to use more available 'soft' drugs (like prescription pills, alcohol and pot) before graduating to harder substances that may be more difficult and expensive to obtain. In the general population "whether marijuana smokers go on to use other illicit drugs depends more on social factors like being exposed to stress and being unemployed - not so much whether they smoked a joint in the eighth grade" (Hunter 2010).

Merely because crime decreased in New York City during the 1990s does not mean that this was due to the enforcement of the 'broken windows' doctrine that suggests that being rigorous about policing small offenses reduces the likelihood that criminals will go on to commit more serious offenses. Other factors may have influenced the decline of crime, including the increase in prosperity during that era of most Americans, including poorer Americans. The availability of jobs in non-criminal spheres may have kept the crime rate down, as did the influx of new capital into many American cities. Another influence may have been the price of drugs: "when crack first hit the market in the 1980s, it was a lucrative business to be in (and worth the fight for turf), but as it became more available, the price dropped dramatically, making dealers think twice about risking their lives to make ever-lower profits, and reducing the incidence of violent crime" (Brooks 2006). In the book Freakanomics, a controversial but also plausible explanation for the decline in crime is suggested. The authors advance the theory that the birthrate amongst individuals living in crime-ridden areas declined, thus decreasing the number of potential criminals. As abortion became more available, "the decline in the birth of unwanted, often poor and fatherless children in the '70s led to a decline in the number of juvenile delinquents in the '80s and hardened criminals in the '90s' (Brooks 2006).

The logic behind broken windows theory is thus: "fighting the seemingly minor indicators of neighborhood decay and disorder-broken windows, graffiti, even litter-helps prevent major crimes" (Brooks 2006). Broken windows theory suggests that visual 'clues' that the neighborhood is 'bad' results in criminals perpetrating actual crimes, and then more serious crimes. "Kelling and Wilson conjured a vision of untended neighborhoods quickly reduced to crime-infested wastelands. First local boys rob a passed-out drunk on a lark; then muggers start robbing anyone who looks like he might have a few big bills in his wallet. Residents begin to view their neighborhood as unsafe, and retreat into their homes-or to the suburbs-abandoning the declining neighborhood to criminals" (Brooks 2006). However, ultimately, broken windows theory, when analyzed, is merely another variation of the logical fallacy known as the slippery slope argument which suggests that when you allow some small exception to a rule or law, this will pave the way to a bigger exception or infraction, eventually making the law meaningless.