Editing Broken windows theory (section)

==Concepts==
===Informal social controls===
Many claim that [[informal social control]] can be an effective strategy to reduce unruly behavior. {{Harvtxt | Garland | 2001}} expresses that "community policing measures in the realization that informal social control exercised through everyday relationships and institutions is more effective than legal sanctions."<ref name=Muniz2015>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sEwDCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA58 |title=Police, Power, and the Production of Racial Boundaries |isbn=9780813569772 |last1=Muñiz |first1=Ana |date=2015 |publisher=Rutgers University Press}} Page 58, referencing {{harvtxt| Garland | 2001}}.</ref> Informal social control methods have demonstrated a "get tough" attitude by proactive citizens, and express a sense that disorderly conduct is not tolerated. According to Wilson and Kelling, there are two types of groups involved in maintaining order, 'community watchmen' and '[[vigilante]]s'.<ref name="wilson_kelling" /> The United States has adopted in many ways policing strategies of old European times, and at that time, informal social control was the norm, which gave rise to contemporary formal policing. Though, in earlier times, because there were no legal sanctions to follow, informal policing was primarily 'objective' driven, as stated by Wilson and Kelling (1982).

{{Harvnb | Wilcox | Quisenberry | Cabrera | Jones | 2004}} argue that improper [[land use]] can cause disorder, and the larger the public land is, the more susceptible to criminal deviance.{{Sfn | Wilcox | Quisenberry | Cabrera | Jones | 2004 | p = 186}} Therefore, nonresidential spaces, such as businesses, may assume to the responsibility of informal social control "in the form of [[surveillance]], communication, supervision, and intervention".{{Sfn | Wilcox | Quisenberry | Cabrera | Jones | 2004 | p = 187}} It is expected that more strangers occupying the public land creates a higher chance for disorder. [[Jane Jacobs]] can be considered one of the original pioneers of this perspective of ''broken windows''. Much of her book, ''[[The Death and Life of Great American Cities]]'', focuses on residents' and nonresidents' contributions to maintaining order on the street, and explains how local businesses, institutions, and convenience stores provide a sense of having "eyes on the street".{{Sfn | Jacobs | 1961|pp=34-35}}

On the contrary, many residents feel that regulating disorder is not their responsibility. Wilson and Kelling found that studies done by psychologists suggest people often refuse to go to the aid of someone seeking help, not due to a lack of concern or selfishness "but the absence of some plausible grounds for feeling that one must personally accept responsibility".<ref name="wilson_kelling" /> On the other hand, others plainly refuse to put themselves in harm's way, depending on how grave they perceive the nuisance to be; a 2004 study observed that "most research on disorder is based on individual level perceptions decoupled from a systematic concern with the disorder-generating environment."{{Sfn | Sampson | Raudenbush | 2004 | p = 319}} Essentially, everyone perceives disorder differently, and can contemplate seriousness of a crime based on those perceptions. However, Wilson and Kelling feel that although community involvement can make a difference, "the police are plainly the key to order maintenance."<ref name="wilson_kelling" />

===Role of fear===
Ranasinghe argues that the concept of fear is a crucial element of broken windows theory, because it is the foundation of the theory.{{Sfn | Ranasinghe | 2012 | p = 65}} She also adds that public disorder is "... unequivocally constructed as problematic because it is a source of fear".{{Sfn | Ranasinghe | 2012 | p = 67}} Fear is elevated as perception of disorder rises; creating a social pattern that tears the social fabric of a community and leaves the residents feeling hopeless and disconnected. Wilson and Kelling hint at the idea, but do not focus on its central importance. They indicate that fear was a product of incivility, not crime, and that people avoid one another in response to fear, weakening controls.<ref name="wilson_kelling" /> Hinkle and Weisburd found that police interventions to combat minor offenses, as per the broken windows model, "significantly increased the probability of feeling unsafe," suggesting that such interventions might offset any benefits of broken windows policing in terms of fear reduction.{{sfn|Hinkle|Weisburd|2008}}

===Comparison to "zero tolerance"===
Broken windows policing is sometimes described as a "[[zero tolerance]]" policing style,<ref name="The Broken Windows Theory">{{Citation |last=Adams |first=Joan |url=https://www.supplyht.com/articles/89868-adams-on-pvfsupply-the-broken-windows-theory |title=The "Broken Windows" Theory |year=2006 |magazine=Supply House Times |publisher=UBC |place=[[Canada]] |access-date=2020-02-19 |archive-date=2020-02-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200225094002/https://www.supplyht.com/articles/89868-adams-on-pvfsupply-the-broken-windows-theory |url-status=live }}</ref> including in some academic studies.<ref name="Sridhar 1841–43">{{cite journal |last=Sridhar |first=C.R. |title=Broken Windows and Zero Tolerance: Policing Urban Crimes |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |date=13–19 May 2006 |volume=41 |issue=19 |pages=1841–43 |jstor=4418196}}</ref> Bratton and Kelling have said that broken windows policing and zero tolerance are different, and that minor offenders should receive lenient punishment.<ref name="brattonkelling">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-we-need-broken-windows-policing-13696.html |title=Why we need Broken Windows policing |magazine=[[City Journal]] |author=William Bratton, George Kelling |date=December 2014 |access-date=18 December 2017 |archive-date=27 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200727005303/https://www.city-journal.org/html/why-we-need-broken-windows-policing-13696.html |url-status=live }}</ref>