Answer:
Quality of life policing, also known as broken windows policing, has been a controversial topic for several years. The strategy involves targeting low-level offenses such as loitering, panhandling, and public urination with the aim of preventing serious crime. The idea behind quality of life policing is that cracking down on minor offenses will deter more serious criminal activity from taking place.
However, critics of the strategy argue that it leads to the harassment of vulnerable populations and exacerbates existing inequalities. In this report, I will discuss two recent news articles on this issue and provide my opinion on the validity of this patrol strategy.
The first article is from the New York Times, published in June 2021. The article discusses how quality of life policing has become a major issue in the race for the next mayor of New York City. Many candidates have promised to reform or even abolish the strategy, citing concerns about the way it has been implemented in the past.
The article notes that quality of life policing was popularized in the 1990s by then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton. During their tenure, the NYPD made over 250,000 quality of life arrests per year. While crime did decrease during this period, many argue that it was due to other factors such as the decline in crack cocaine use and the economic boom of the 1990s.
The article goes on to describe how quality of life policing has disproportionately affected low-income communities of color. For example, in 2019, over 80% of quality of life summonses were issued in neighborhoods where people of color make up the majority of the population. Critics argue that this is evidence of racial bias in the implementation of the strategy.
The second article is from The Guardian, published in April 2021. The article discusses how quality of life policing has been criticized for exacerbating the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles. The article notes that the Los Angeles Police Department has increased its enforcement of quality of life offenses in recent years, leading to a rise in arrests for offenses such as camping on the sidewalk or sleeping in a car.
Critics argue that this approach does nothing to address the root causes of homelessness, such as lack of affordable housing and mental health issues. Instead, they argue that quality of life policing only serves to further criminalize homelessness and make life more difficult for those who are already struggling.
In my opinion, quality of life policing is a flawed strategy that has been shown to disproportionately affect marginalized communities. While it may have some short-term benefits in reducing certain types of crime, it ultimately fails to address the root causes of crime and only serves to further criminalize poverty and homelessness.
Instead, law enforcement agencies should focus on addressing the systemic issues that lead to crime, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to affordable housing and healthcare. This requires a more holistic approach that involves investing in communities and providing support to those in need, rather than simply cracking down on low-level offenses.
In conclusion, quality of life policing is a contentious issue that requires careful consideration and thoughtful reform. While it may have some benefits in reducing certain types of crime, the strategy has been shown to disproportionately affect marginalized communities and exacerbate existing inequalities. Law enforcement agencies should instead focus on addressing the root causes of crime and providing support to those in need.