Once upon time, in a small, quiet community in West Rural St.
Andrew, a homeowner came from work one evening confronted by the sight of an
old white station waggon on blocks, on the sidewalk almost opposite his front
gate. It was a jarring sight: this old, disabled car, an ugly blemish on the
green, rustic landscape. Days passed, each day seeing another part of the car
missing. One day it had only one door instead of two. The next day, the bonnet
was gone. On yet another day, the dashboard had been taken. The car was being scrapped
right on the sidewalk, in the middle of this small, quiet community.
The homeowner typically left for work by 7am and returned
home after 7pm. He relied on his housekeeper to inform him of the activity
around the (not so) abandoned car. She reported that the car’s owner had some
connection to the house opposite his…he helped to build it, he claimed, and it
was actually his mother’s property, now rented out. He promised that the car
would be moved, that he just needed a little more time.
After six weeks of facing this almost shell of a car wreck
on blocks, in front of his gate, the homeowner reported the matter to the local
police. He reasoned that sufficient time had elapsed and he preferred not to
get into an argument with someone who appeared to be comfortable with scrapping
a car piece by piece on the sidewalk over an extended period of time.
Furthermore, any opportunity to interact with the scrapper would demand a change to his own schedule, awaiting Mr. Scrapper’s attendance at the wreck.
This matter of a scrapped car, perched on blocks on the sidewalk, was most
certainly an issue of law and order, easily dealt with by the police, he
reasoned.
He was in for a rude awakening.
Ten weeks elapsed, and the
shell of the car was still on the sidewalk opposite his gate. One morning, Mr.
Homeowner’s wife was leaving for work and she saw two men “working” on the car.
She stopped and attempted to pleasantly engage the men, seeking to elicit some
sort of timeline and commitment for disposing of the wreck. She was greeted
with hostility from one of the men who claimed ownership of the wreck. He
angrily sought to justify the presence of the wreck on “his sidewalk” since the
sidewalk adjoined “his mother’s house, the house weh him broad out him back fi
help har build!” He went on to rant about the homeowner going to the police
instead of trying to find him first, and declared “ah nuh so we fi live!”. Mrs. Homeowner, a bit intimidated, but
resolute, politely ended the discussion with: “Anyway, it really doesn’t belong
here. Please seek to get it removed sooner rather than later.”
Twelve weeks elapsed, and the wreck was still on the sidewalk. By
this time, it was a mere chassis. Note that at the
end of 6 weeks having not heard from the police or seeing any resolution,
Mr. Homeowner stepped up inquiries of the local police. He made a total of
7 visits to the police station, spoke with a superintendent of police on
the matter and went on to report said issue to a senior superintendent of
police. In discussions with the police, Mr. Homeowner confirmed that the
property was not stolen, and the person responsible was known to the
police and was being ‘given time’ to remove the item and clean the mess.
Mr. Homeowner remains adamant that the presence of this shell and garbage is a
public health and security risk.
In reviewing this story and how it might play out,
the “Broken Windows Theory” immediately came to mind. The Broken Windows Theory,
posited by Wilson and Kelling in 1982, seeks to make a link between disorder
and more serious crime. The theory was born out of the following observations and reasoning: a building with a few
broken windows is likely to have other windows broken by vandals eventually,
said vandals going on to eventually break in and even become squatters. Consider
also a clean sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. This leads to more litter. And
even more litter as people conclude that this is an unpoliced situation where
anything can and does go.
Wilson and Kelling maintain that disorder, while not
directly linked to more serious crime, certainly leads to increased fear and
withdrawal from residents, which creates a context for more serious crime to
flourish. Residents will grow cynical as to the role and efficacy of the police,
and fail to report violations they see or experience. Persons of mal-intent
will quickly identify this context as one where they can do as they like and
more than likely get away with it.
That the actions of the man scrapping this car on
the sidewalk are against the law is beyond debate. His actions constitute a
breach of section 45 & 46 of the National Solid Waste Management Act.
Section
45 definitively states that every person who disposes of solid waste in
any area or in any manner not approved by the Authority…commits an
offence and shall be liable on summary conviction before a Resident Magistrate
to a fine not exceeding one million dollars or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding nine months or to both such fine and imprisonment
Section 46 continues: (1) A person commits an offence if he- (a) throws,
drops or otherwise deposits and leaves any litter in any public
place; or (b) erects, displays (whether by writing, marking
or otherwise), deposits or affixes anything in a public place or on any building, wall, fence or structure abutting
or adjoining a public place, in such circumstances as to cause, contribute
to or tend to the defacement of that place, building wall, fence or structure, as the case may be, and shall be
liable to a penalty under section 53.
The law continues to guide
law enforcers as to their response to breeches of this act in Section 53: Where an authorized officer finds a person on any
occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion that person is
committing or has committed an offence to which this section applies, he may
serve that person with the prescribed notice in writing offering the discharge
of any liability to conviction of that offence by payment of a fixed penalty
under this section…
To provide even more
clarity, here are definitions under the law that remove all doubt as to the
legality of the scrapping and abandoning of the car on the sidewalk:
“authorized officer”: any member of the Jamaica
Constabulary Force
“litter”: solid waste in any public place and
includes any refuse, rubbish, bottles, glass, debris, dirt, rubble, ballast,
stones, noxious or contained substances or waste matter or any other matter likely to deface, make
untidy, obstruct or cause a nuisance in a public place
“public place”: includes every public highway, street, road, square, court, alley, lane, bridle way, footway,
parade, wharf, jetty, quay, bridge,
sidewalk, verge;
After twelve weeks and numerous reports, Mr.
Homeowner has reasonably concluded that the police have failed to uphold the
law in this situation. The police have been unresponsive. The chassis remains
on the sidewalk. Mr. Scrapper remains free. The police, by refusing to act decisively and uphold
the law where this scrapped car is concerned, have now created a context that
exposes this community to the possibility of even more serious crime.
Indeed, the police have spoken to the offender. This
is evidenced by Mr. Scrapper’s anger when speaking to Mrs. Homeowner. One gets
the feeling that the police have framed their discussion with this known
offender from the point of view of the homeowner: “Mr. So and So wants you to
move that car from in front of his home” rather than framing the offence from
the point of view of the law! Had the police engaged him by pointing out the
offence as it is framed in law, they could have prevented the tension that
exists because Mr. Scrapper feels that Mr. Homeowner “a give him a fight.”
There are too many examples in Jamaica of lives being lost as a result of
interactions borne out of unchecked, escalating tensions between parties;
disorder giving rise to so called serious crime.
If Mr. Homeowner sees suspicious activity in a nearby
residence, who could blame him if he opts not to report it to the police? He
can reasonably conclude after all, that the police are selective in how they go
about serving, reassuring and protecting. More
serious crime can potentially move in to this community now in the face of
decreased levels of informal social control.
The Broken Windows
Theory and policing are not without criticism. There are studies showing that
zero tolerance has led to uneven prosecution in some areas, minorities being
targeted and punished for very minor infractions at a higher rate than their
white counterparts in the USA for example.
It would suit the
police and political directorate here in Jamaica to consider this approach to
crime fighting, however. We have seen a
general decline in law and order: loud music way into the night, filthy cities
and communities, deliberate ignoring of zoning laws in residential
neighbourhoods seeing a rise in commercial activity, savoury and otherwise
(think massage parlours) increased road fatalities from reckless driving and on
and on. What have we to lose from an approach that treats with such offences as
prescribed by the law? The police appear to be selective in which laws they opt
to enforce and how they enforce them. This surely is not their right!
After three months,
the police still have an opportunity to do the right thing and re-establish a
context of law and order in that West Rural St. Andrew community where a scrapped
chassis remains a blemish, health risk and security risk, and an obvious
affront to the laws of the land. They must immediately act as the law demands,
making it clear that the offender’s actions go beyond upsetting Mr. Homeowner,
that they are in clear contravention of the law. They still have an opportunity
to act and in so doing, dissuade potential lawbreakers seeing a slow decline in
standards in the community from adding to the disorder. They still have an
opportunity prevent and possibly reverse the disenchantment and resentment that
Mr. Homeowner and his family may feel, maintaining these critical allies, the
citizens, without whom crime fighting can never work.
Selective enforcement
of the law strips the police of legitimacy, rendering their efforts at crime
fighting null and void.
Were this another community,
say Kingston 8, or were the sidewalk in front of the Prime Minister's residence or in front of
Mr. Captain of Industry'sor indeed in front of the Commissioner of Police's residence, would the police response to an abandoned chassis be
the same as it has been in this West Rural St. Andrew community? On what basis does the police decide which
laws to enforce and when? “To Serve, Protect and Reassure” is the stated motto of
the Jamaica police. Their lack of responsiveness to an action that is in direct
contravention of the law of the land suggests that their motto would more
accurately read: “To serve, protect and reassure those who matter…”
Labels: broken windows theory, crime, crime fighting, Jamaica, police
