Policing - Implementing Changes the

Policing - Implementing Changes THE QUALITY of LIFE INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTED in NEW YORK CITY In 1993, New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani implemented a zero-tolerance approach to criminal code enforcement that included mandatory police response to various violations, the lowest level of infraction set forth in the criminal code, below misdemeanors (Conlon, 2004). According to Giuliani, low-level violations, particularly those that relate to the so-called broken windows concept, detract from the overall quality of life of ordinary citizens.

That initiative included a crackdown on minor infractions like squeegee solicitations, spitting in public, playing music that is audible to others on public transportation, unlawful assembly, and even "improper use of a milk crate" (i.e. sitting on it) that were appreciated more by some than others (Conlon, 2004).

The Relevance of the Broken Windows Concept to a Bustling Metropolis: In its original formulation and context, the broken windows theory applied to the relationship between infrastructure deterioration and general neglect of real property and the growth of crime in those areas and its eventual spread to surrounding communities (Schmalleger, 2001).

In that respect, it does not apply to large busy cities like New York, "the city that never sleeps." However, in a broader sense, the broken windows principle also applies to the general deterioration of respect for rules of order and lawful authority where, as in New York City, police are typically too busy handling "heavy" calls for service to respond to all the comparatively inconsequential violations they witness continually (Nolan, et al., 2005).

The concern on the part of Giuliani was not that lack of enforcement of minor violations necessarily increased crime specifically, but that the routine flouting of laws undermined respect for law enforcement and at least encouraged more serious criminal activity. More importantly, Giuliani objected to the traditional characterization of minor illegal activities as being "victimless" crimes because they detracted from the quality of life for thousands of ordinary citizens (Conlon, 2004).

According to Giuliani, failing to take action against the hundreds of "squeegee men" staking out major intersections and access ramps throughout the city bogged down traffic for thousands in the aggregate, and annoyed and inconvenienced drivers continually. Naturally, the seemingly petty enforcement of milk crate-use violations became the subject of numerous news stories, but it actually served a valid purpose.

The focus on milk crates was certainly a novel method of improving quality-of-life detractors in many neighborhoods, but the objective was actually about eliminating the age-old habit, especially within poorer New York City communities, of groups of men sitting on the sidewalk in front of bodegas or livery cab companies from dawn to dusk every day of the summer. Regardless of the fact that no serious criminal activity transpired in most cases, it detracted from the quality of life of some residents of buildings immediately adjacent to such congregations (Conlon, 2004).

In other situations, such as peaceful gatherings of small groups of students outside bars every weekend night, residents of buildings overlooking the bars were subjected to loud conversations, cigarette smoke, music from vehicles until well after typical closing times of 4:00AM every weekend night, at a minimum.

Giuliani's zero-tolerance approach to "unlawful assembly" of the type previously and ordinarily ignored as a technical violation not worth enforcing prohibited these gatherings for the benefit of residents who wished not to be disturbed all night long three or four nights a week in many "trendy" neighborhoods. Furthermore, the broken windows analogy also applied to those situations, by virtue of the frequency with which altercations and brawls break out in conjunction with alcohol and large gatherings.

Admittedly, the zero-tolerance approach to minor violations under the Giuliani administration sometimes seemed to go too far without any apparent purpose. For example, one of the previously ignored violations enforced concerned occupying more than one seat on public transportation. Of course, that rule serves a valid purpose in the case of inconsiderate subway or bus riders who occupy a second seat with their feet or their packages as the passenger compartment fills up. However, zero tolerance required police to issue.