|
|
| Also listed in: Denver County |
Categories: Equality / Civil Rights, Civil Liberties / Privacy, Effective & Ethical Government
It was announced late last year that the Hickenlooper would be hiring Kelling, and it was met with dismay by those who monitor the Dever Police Department's less than stellar human rights record. And for good reason, as I shall later show.
To put it bluntly, the hiring of George Kelling and the implementation of the "broken windows" policy in Denver is extremely bad news for anyone who values civil rights and individual liberty. It's especially bad for minorities, young people, and the homeless. Not to mention our city's fiscal solvency.
So I'll bring my opinion on the matter to the table, and I want you to at least consider it. Because this move--along with the way our police work in general--has ramifications that could change this city forever.
Sure, our papers can use sunny euphemisms all they want about the issue. But when Republicans and the Heritage Foundation support the theory, you know there's something fishy going on here.
George Kelling is a college professor and policy wonk at the Manhattan Institute. He also moonlights as a "police consultant" and gets paid millions for it. In 1982, he published his grand theory, called Broken Windows. In it he concluded that if law enforcement allows the smallest amount of leniency for misdemeanor offences, you risk the likelihood of more serious crimes being committed in neighborhoods and society.
The analogy he used in his thesis was a building with a broken window. If such a window is not repaired then more windows get broken and the building is ruined. Kelling sees that building as society, and thus advocates the strictest punishment for what he calls "disorderly elements."
And what kinds of people or things make up these elements? Perhaps the most condemning thing is Kelling's own words about it:
"Many citizens, of course, are primarily frightened by crime, especially crime involving a sudden, violent attack by a stranger. This risk is very real, in Newark as in many large cities. But we tend to overlook another source of fear--the fear of being bothered by disorderly people. Not violent people, nor, necessarily, criminals, but disreputable or obstreperous or unpredictable people: panhandlers, drunks, addicts, rowdy teenagers, prostitutes, loiterers, the mentally disturbed."
Since the theory, Kelling has done work and implemented his programs in LA, New York, and Boston--to disastrous results.
In New York, Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani took the broken windows theory to heart, with his "quality of life" campaign.
"Police officials have also suggested that the sharp increase in complaints was due to increased arrests and police activity during an intensive anti-crime drive in the city during the past two years (known as the quality of life initiative), and that many complaints arose from more effective policing and an increase in arrests, rather than genuine abuses. (The quality of life campaign to reduce crime in the city started when present Police Commissioner William Bratton took office under Mayor Rudolf Guiliani in January 1994. The strategy ranged from rounding up juveniles playing truant from school to the targeting of police resources to key areas. There has been an historic drop of 27% in reported serious crime in the city since 1994, with homicides reportedly falling by nearly 40%)…
"During their last visit to New York in November 1995, Amnesty Internationals delegates were told by several sources, including officials from the CCRB, that more aggressive policing in the past few years had led to an increase in complaints of ill-treatment. While effective measures to combat crime in New York City are obviously to be applauded, Amnesty International believes that an increase in complaints of unwarranted force, leading to ill-treatment and deaths in custody, should be a matter of urgent concern."
In Los Angles, the same program was implemented--by William Bratton, the same man from New York and an ally of Kelling. The American Civil Liberties Union was one of the strongest civil liberty supporters in LA, speaking out against a policy that they saw as a clear violation of human rights and just plain ineffective.
"I think this ruling, for the time being, sends the message to the police that 'broken windows' is not a license to break the law," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU/SC. "We've said from the beginning that sweeps that violate the rights of residents, homeless or not, are not part of the solution."
To add to it all, there are numerous studies done on the "broken windows" theory, and how alternative crime polices are far more effective and far more humane.
And now the policy has come to Denver. A city where the police have an egregious record of death and spying on community activists.
Do we really need to be focusing on homeless people and teenagers, instead of real crime? Do you want your city to spend millions on a lawsuit/s, all because of a deranged and neurotic policy? Do we want to be afraid to walk the streets alone?
I don't think so. And it's a pity the mayor was duped into thinking that such an easy solution would be applicable for such an elaborate and serious problem.
I’ve been scratching my brain from here to eternity trying to figure out just what makes Hick so popular. If anything we should be frightened. The man’s ten point homeless plan calls for forcing treatment on the homeless, and if they don’t agree to it, arresting them. Then there’s Kelling, a man who is now notorious for cracking down on said “disorderly elements.” Add to it all the mayor’s reluctance to enact real reform regarding the Denver police (1A in 2004), and you got one really messed up situation.
What I really think happened—and mind you I have absolutely no proof for it—was that that Hick’s business buddies in LODO were getting sick of seeing the gross homeless people when they drove to work, so they complained and now we got these programs.
Liberal euphemisms like “community” and “commission” sell the whole thing, but what these bold moves are really intended to do is cover up the problem rather than fix it. And nobody seems to know what’s going on. I must be crazy.
Yes, homelessness is a problem in Denver, and violent panhandling is not good. But do you really think you can force someone to change their lifestyle? And will putting them in over crowed prisons do anything? What is also worrisome is the money that might be wasted on lawsuits brought by people who have had their rights violated by the city government. Denver has already spent enough regarding the “spy files.” Why is it so radical to demand accountability from those who are servants of the public?
I supported Hick for governor—anything that would get him out of my city. (Not physically, of course.) But now I can safely say the man in no way represents me. I didn’t vote for him, and the sooner the public of Denver wakes up to take back their city, the better. The stalwarts on city council are hopeless and need to be replaced.