I'm a homeowner in an "inner-city" (for lack of a better term) Denver neighborhood, and I'm all for the Broken Windows problem. If you research the term the concept is two-fold: One, which even I find a bit of a stretch, is that by strictly enforcing petty crimes, the overall "disorder" and "disharmony" of a neighborhood can be corrected. This may happen to a point, but the data out there isn't very supportive of this hypothesis. The second, and most key point, which I think so many people miss, is that the same people committing many of the petty crimes are also committing the more serious ones--Thus, by enforcing petty crimes aggressively, you'll in turn catch the really bad guys along the way. Not that I think that selling drugs, or prostitution are small crimes. Our neighborhood is in a state of transition, which will be expedited as new, responsible home and business owners move into the area. Having drunks, prostitutes, and drug dealers, not to mention gang members in the neighborhood just serves to slow the gentrification process. No one profits from this. It's in everyone's interest to clean up these neighborhoods, and I hate to break it to you folks, but since the residents are largely unwilling to make a difference, the onus falls onto our police department. Will there be cases where a police officer goes too far or is too hard on someone? Probably, but there are cases like that right now, it's an imperfect world and the police force is human like anyone else, and the same checks and balances will remain. But until some of the critics come up with a viable alternative (and don't give me the same old crap about improving the social support network or something like that, I want to see an improvement in the neighborhood in my lifetime) I'm 100% behind broken windows.

As I understand it, the broken windows policy doesn't necessarily mean more adolescent brickthrowers will go to jail. It does mean that absentee landlords will be ticketed if they don't maintain their urban properties. Dilapidated buildings are quite attractive to vandalizing guttersnipes. It's a rather aesthetic approach, in the best sense of the word.

It seems that certain misconceptions and differences of opinion often appear when people discuss "broken window theory". "It holds that by busting people for the little crimes like breaking windows and getting them off the street, the city becomes safer and a better place to live." This isn't the understanding that I've always had. To me, it doesn't seem to be about "getting petty criminals off the street", but rather: 1. setting expections among the citizenry (if petty crime isn't allowed, the serious crime most certainly won't be tolerated). 2. showing that someone "cares" (broken window theory holds that if minor problems such as broken windows go unrepaired for a sufficient duration, observers will gain the notion that nobody "cares" about the welfare of the building, thus opening it up to more serious vandalism. quick repairs shows an active level of concern, reducing the motivation for committing these acts as they'll quickly be resolved anyway). 3. slowing the spread of "entropy" (entropy, or disorder within a closed system [in this case, crime/social disorder within Denver] needs to be slowed/controlled to maintain balance). Just some thoughts. Anyone else have an opinion on this?

You’re absolutely right. Never mind the fact that wherever Kelling goes there are costly ACLU suits soon to follow. Personally I think the mayor was swindled by the man, who has a pretty horrible track record when you get down to it. Denver doesn’t need a man who believes that “vagrants” and young people are a numero uno priority. What we’re going to see is a lot of liberal talk about it. “Community policing” will be one word thrown around. But let’s not be fooled here. There are serious problems with the “broken windows” theory, and in a city where the police have the record that they do, it’s just not right.