Category: Broken Windows Theory

Key Triggers of The Birmingham Prison Riot of 2016

The Birmingham prison riot of 2016 has been commonly described as “the worst prison riot seen since the Strangeways riot” (Yorkshirepost.co.uk., 2016) that irrupted in 1990. After the disorder there was a rough estimate of 500 inmates involved as four wings out of a total eleven wings filled into a full-scale riot. It lasted from 12 to 15 hours until negotiations started and the prison was safely under control by authorities. During the over 12 hours of disorder inmates destroyed records, started fires, threw paint at officers, forcefully gained access to the prisons medial supplies and caused general havoc leading to £2million in damages.

Sources in the media suggest that the initial trigger at the Winson Green prison in Birmingham was after four of the inmates got their hands-on stolen keys and was able to release prisoners from their cells while the riot ensued. Since this event many articles and news sources have suggested a number of the prison’s downfalls and staffing complaints, allowing readers to hear the statements from all parties involved. Including ex and current prison officers, G4S, The Ministry of Justice and even the inmates there at the time of the riot.

An eye-opening account of an ex-prison officer’s experience spoke anonymously stating that the officers that worked there when he was a “fresh recruit” had cut to 50% by the time he had left. Government funding was increasingly lacking and since prisons generally had higher staff sickness this added further worries to their continuous understaffing problem. When the prison got taken over by the contractor “G4S”, prison officers saw a complete change in inmates as they were known to notice the G4S uniform and compare officers to ‘security guards’ with no authority. This was just the beginning of the divide that was making its way around the prison (BBC News, 2016).

The Ministry of Justice report was released after the event, stating that they would be bringing “HMP Birmingham back under government control from G4S”. Their report had mentioned that staff at the prison had been “worn down” by staff shortages caused by sickness among the officers and disorganised deployment slowly “relinquished authority to the prisoners” who were policing mostly themselves (Grierson, 2018).

According to Inspectors that visited the prison before the riot they described the officers as being “anxious and fearful” (Elgot, 2017) as well as finding officers asleep during their rotations and locking themselves away in staff rooms in order to avoid prisoners and other members of staff. Inspectors observed inmates sleeping on springs without mattresses. Along with other shocking revelations. The largest revelation being the blatant drug use, trafficking and appalling conditions. Drug use was evident within the prison, one in seven inmates admitted to their drug addition having developed once imprisoned. This fact highlighted by the recent deaths before the riot that saw 3 inmates die from suspected synthetic cannabis use. The poor conditions ranged from the toilet areas where large quantities of blood, rat droppings and vomit were witnessed. The cells had broken windows and lose wires that caused injuries and inmates reported being freezing throughout the day and night.

After the 15-hour riot, Jerry Petherick the managing director for G4S custodial and detention stated that the prisoners “showed callus disregard for the safety of prisoners and staff” (McCarthy et al., 2018).

During the disorder prisoners reached out to the BBC and stated that the largest contributing factor that lead to the riot was due to being on ‘lockdown’ in their cells all day. They also complained about the prison’s poor conditions along with the poor healthcare and nutrition they we’re receiving.

In the Winson Green prison, the day to day interactions between prison officers and inmates had become minimal. With officers changing rotations and failing to build respect, report and generally not producing authority over prisoners. The relationship had broken down dramatically leaving mistrust and a glomming atmosphere noticed by all who went inside. Inmates who expected to be safe, watched as officers perpetuated bullying and drug use by standing by and leaving the prisoners to police themselves.

Officers working in the prison were also reported to have turned on each other. They lacked communication and created a noticeable divide that inmates had even picked up on, between long standing prison officers and new recruits sent by G4S. Once again not presenting an enjoyable workplace for future officers and adding to the understaffing of the prison.

The upkeep of the prison was in disarray, with wires and windows being broken for extended periods of time as well as and blood, faeces and other bodily fluids being left and not cleaned. This made it an uninviting and disorganised way to live for the staff as well as the prisoners. With the upkeep of the prison being so little prisoners are expected to feel uncared for. Prison is not expected to be a wonderful place as it is a sanction, but the total disregard for maintenance can easily upset those who live there. Causing resentment between the staff and prisoners that built up over time.

The structure of prisons is already prone to downfall as the concept focuses on the incarceration of human beings and taking away their agency and freedom to replace with routine, rehabilitation, the justice of serving time for wrong doings and adding a sanction to further sway individuals/groups from committing further crime.

When it comes to prisons and its innerworkings its clear to see where problems arise. Lack of funding is a worldwide worry for government run prisons, and can spiral even further with privatised prisons as large corporate businesses are constantly trying to find new ways for the company to cut costs and further their bottom lines. This is when the prisoner’s quality of life is affected and can lead to the break down in prisons all over the country as inmates’ rebel against the setting.

By using The Broken Windows Theory, it can create an insight as to why the inmates at Winston Green prison decided to create havoc and engage in major crimes such as conspiracy to riot, smashing windows, assaulting officers and breaking laws and codes that are put in place to maintain order and sanity inside the prison walls. The Broken Window Theory suggests that when there is visible crime for example, graffiti and lower level drug offences like the taking and distribution of drugs in an environmental setting it encourages further disruption including much more serious crimes.

In the inspection at the Birmingham prison, drug use was evident as even the smell of cannabis was said to linger around cells. The conditions we’re lacking and prison gangs acted with immunity. Lower-level crimes like these we’re taking place all over the prison and is part of the prisons inner-workings. Crime to prisoners is a normal variation of their life, but by using this theory, it suggests solutions to the reoccurring behaviour, such as policing methods that individually target these minor crimes, doing so helps encourage an atmosphere that promotes order as well as lawfulness and aids in preventing larger crimes from taking place. It tackles authority and makes prisoners continually aware that no crime is tolerated.

After the 15-hour prison riot ensued and authorities managed to gain back control, The Ministry of Justice produced a report claiming that the prison would be leaving G4S and re-joining under government control. This report was one of the most important documents to come out after the riot, as it showed governmental action. Readers and individuals affected by the riots we’re in agreement that someone needed to step-up and take control over what was clearly an issue and take steps in order to find reasonable solution. After the unannounced inspection at the Birmingham prison, downfalls surfaced but we’re not acted upon until after the riot broke out. The Birmingham prison now being back under government regulations instead of being a privatised prison managed by G4S was a turning point. This action now solved a few of the problems that the prison faced. Such as the animosity between prisoners and new guards that came with the take over of G4S, as well as the seemingly unregulated health and wellness of the prisoners, maintenance, and health and safety of the prison.

Although this was a positive turn for Winston Green prison not all issues are easily fixed by the take-over to government authority. Money is still spread thin, with prisoners feeling that the prison staff’s training is so vague that they respond with over-estimated aggression and force. “Younger prisoners often prefer privatised prisons” as they are equipped with newer equipment like better gyms. While older prisoners tend to see the benefits from a government run prisons as they find better trained staff who have worked at the prisons for multiple years and are equipped with the knowledge of how to properly tackle prison tomfoolery (Vice, 2018).

Studies by the US GOA as well as the US Attorney general in 1998 found no evidence to suggest that private corrections have reduced costs or raised performance quality. In fact, they have a history of performance problems, early examples of this include a private prison in Youngstown, Ohio where seven individuals died within its first year of operation in 1997, as well as twenty people stabbed, six escapees and two murders.

Another example of a more recent failing of a privatised prison came in 2010 when three inmates escaped from a private prison located in Kingsman, Arizona. The prisoners kidnapped two tourists, killed them, then proceeded to burn their bodies in their campervan. In an official review of this case, state investigators found that the “perimeters of the prison were left for a whole 15-minutes at the start of every shift, with only 1 guard monitoring the prisoners at the time of escapes” (Lotke, 2016). Not only this but during a 16-hour study period, 89 false alarms over prisoners escaping we’re recorded. Staff started learning to disregard these false alarms causing major health and safety violations for the inmates, staff and importantly the general public. The same prison was also found to have no officer training program and one-third of staff had less than 3 months experience on the job.

It is important to note that G4S Justice Services is currently the largest company in the private prisons sector along with Sector Custodial Services and Sodexo Justice Services that contractually manage 14 private prisons that are located within the UK. G4S we’re actually in the news headlines before the media overflow that hit during and after the Birmingham Prison riot. In 2012, two directors had resigned after a review that revealed G4S being at fault for a security contract between G4S and London Games that had gone sour by G4S failing to recut enough security staff and London Games ultimately drafting in armed forces personnel last minute to recover. Apart from this, in 2012 G4S was again receiving media attention, this time it was criticisms from HM inspectors that were concerned of G4S’s ability of running Mold Prison in Flintshire. Inspectors found “clear weaknesses” in their management plans. Despite inmate safety improvements they found ongoing problems with its training sector as well as the availability of narcotics and lack of confidence in the staff members.

To conclude the main points raised in this case study, the triggers that led to the Birmingham prison riot of 2016 have been discussed. All parties involved such as the officers, inmates, the higher-ups like G4S and The Ministry of Justice have revealed that a general mix of understaffing, unregulated staff training and mistrust between guards and inmates can been seen as the root causes. Prisoners became irritated by the isolation of being on “lockdown” and the profound health and safety levels were concerning. Inmates resisted the privatisation take over meanwhile with little maintenance being conducted. Staff failing to understand how to properly respond in a time of crisis as well as staff letting minor crimes like drug offences and gang violence build up put a strain on the Birmingham prison.

In regards to what can be done to private prisons to make them more successful is unclear, many US/UK MP’s and political figures have stated their discontent for privatised facilities. Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union has stated that “The privatisation of our prison service ought to be a national scandal and that it has happened without any public debate is shameful. It is morally reprehensible that companies are profiting from locking people up and we urgently need an independent review to look at the impact on our communities, staff and prisoners” (The Economist, 2019).

Unfortunately, governments allow privatised prisons as they provide a facility that is desperately needed with more and more inmates every day and government-run prisons becoming full and expensive to expand. The good news being that private prisons in the UK are scarce with a recorded 14 private prisons in England, these prisons all supervised under three contractors. Although the private prison sector is growing in the US.

The broken prison system is a global, political, and social issue that does not come with a quick fix but smaller acts of change can make a difference for the inmates and officers.

More funding for prisons would be the first step needed to incentivise prison officers, conduct better maintenance, health care, education, training and probation. Officers are the first people on the ground and should be highly valuable because of their intensive training and ability to respond appropriately. Staff should not be hired at random and should be appropriately evaluated in order to get the role. Working in a prison and having the power of people’s lives is not for everyone, results from the Stanford prison experiment have provided an example of what can happen when individuals have newly found power over others, and are unequipped and untrained to successfully complete their role in a prison setting.

For the smaller day-to-day issues in prison and court facilities, changes to harsh penalties could help with overcrowding. Sentencing policies play a large role in driving prison growth so reducing sentence length for some offences like property and minor drug crimes would help to combat this. Other changes would be to add more recidivism programs. Inmates can complete these programs to keep them busy, fulfilled and knowledgeable. Completing it also helps to reduce time from the sentences and promotes model inmates with good behaviour. These programs also help to build trust and show the inmates that the prison system is not working against them, it reflects to inmates that if time is being put in, they get rewarded for their good choices.

The support for inmates should not stop once their sentence is served. Offenders recently released need higher supervision levels as it is likely that they may re-offend. Sufficient supervision plays a vital role in reducing re-offending. Introducing mandatory supervision requirements for prisoners would ensure that they receive the right amount of support once released.

The majority of prison offenders are non-violent and non-sex offenders. Expanded parole eligibility to first-time individuals like these would cut cost and over-population. The candidates picked for expanded parole can be released and turned over to less costly options like treatment programs. This meets the needs of the inmate, shortens their length of stay all the while ensuring that the necessary precautions are in place in order to protect the public.

The Main Theories of Causation of Crime

Kimmel and Aronson outline the 4 major theories of crime. They also consider the explanations of why the United States has such a high crime rate. Crime is an act that it illegal and that breaks a group norm. An example would be homicide. However, not all crimes break group norms, such as smoking marijuana, but are bad because they are illegal. There are two categories of crime: violent crime and property crime.

The first theory that Kimmel and Aronson discuss is “Robert K. Merton’s strain theory” (KIMMEL AND ARONSON, pg. 164). The theory was developed in 1957 and suggests that society has made it unachievable for some people to achieve specific goals because there are inequalities. This then results in “anomie.” According to Merton there are five potential reaction to the tensions between accepted norms and social reality: “conformists, innovators, ritualists, rebels, and retreatists” (KIMMEL AND ARONSON, pg. 164). “Conformists accept both the means and values, whether they achieve the goal or not. Innovators accept the values but reject the means, they seek out new financial success. Ritualists accept the means but reject the values, they will work hard but have no strive for financial success. Rebels reject both the means and values, they seek to achieve other goals before the goal of financial success. Retreatists reject both the means and values but do not replace these goals with anything” (KIMMEL AND ARONSON, pg. 164). Examples of strain theory are those who sell drugs or become involved in prostitution, to gain financial security. The problem with strain theory is that not everyone shares the same goals. Also, strain theory does not effectively explain crimes that lack financial motive. A crime of passion could not be explained by strain theory. Some people commit crime because they have the sudden impulse too. They could be mentally ill or have rage. This type of crime has no financial motive, thus not a part of strain theory.

The second theory is “Zimbardo’s broken windows theory.” The broken windows theory proposes that when social controls lose power, little act of deviance start to occur leading to larger acts of deviance. Zimbardo placed one car in a wealthy community and another in a poor community. In both communities, the cars were damaged. It was concluded that once one person committed a crime another person believed it was justifiable to also commit the same crime.

The third theory is Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin’s “opportunity theory’. This theory proposes that the more opportunities a person has to commit a crime the more likely they will. “Opportunity Theory” also puts importance on learning. People must have the opportunity to commit the crime as well as learn to commit the crime. According to Cloward and Ohlin there are three “deviant subcultures: stable neighborhoods, unstable neighborhoods, and neighborhoods too disorganized for either crime or violent to succeed” (KIMMEL AND ARONSON, pg. 167).

The last theory is “conflict theory” that proposes that laws are an instrument of oppression.

The United States has an extremely high rate of crime compared to other countries. Sociologists have considered that American culture, the income gap, and easy access to guns are the reasons why crime is a problem in the US. Woman are significantly less likely to be arrested and convicted than men Also, African Americans are arrested at rate five time greater than statistical probability. Latinos too are overrepresented in the Unites States criminal justice system.

Jeffery H. Reiman gives an examination of how the poor in the United States are very likely to be arrested, charged or convicted. The wealthy usually get away with their crimes. than the wealthy. There are prejudices against the lower class within the criminal justice system. A wealthy and poor person can commit the same crime but the poor person will be convicted or given a longer sentence than the wealthy person. A poor person cannot likely pay bail prior to trial and does not have the money for private legal counsel. The lack of money affects the individual’s outcome. Many poor people often take plea bargains, which saves the individual from having to go to trial but they still are agreeing to being labeled as guilty, The same inequalities are seen in the criminal justice system when comparing African Americans and whites. African Americans are more likely to be in a lower class because of the social structures that have been set in place. The police will probably arrest a poor black man before arresting a rich white man. There is crime among the upper and middle class, however they are rarely arrested.

Conflict theory best describes crime. Richard Quinney’s “conflict theory,” developed in 1977, discuss how large social structure have created inequalities and this is the explanation for why crime occurs. He argued that the dominant social group produces crimes by making and administering laws that oppress the lower class. The laws are made so that the rich can maintain being rich. Conflict theory helps explain the bigger system of how subcultures are formed. Blacks are more likely than whites to live in disorganized inner-city areas. They are also more likely to be unemployed because of difference in education opportunities. An example of a crime that conflict theory can explain is stealing. A poor person might not have the money to afford food, so they steal a loaf of bread. They will be arrested because the law says stealing is a crime, even though the person was poor and hungry. If the person who stole the bread is young black male, statistically they will more likely be arrested and convicted. If the person who stole the bread is a young white male, it is seen as a joke and given a warning. Laws are unfair to minority groups and social classes.

The Broken Windows Theory in the Context of Social Problems in Bangladesh

A temporary market for short time in a day or in a week is known as street market. Selling a variety of goods, including flowers, fruit and vegetables and ice cream, even cloths, mobile accessories and other handicrafts at street or beside traffic road is the marketplace of this street market. There is no requirement for a street trader to show the license or membership in public, only authorized officers of the council and the police may request to see it.

In Bangladesh there are so many street markets. However, some street markets create hazardous problems which make impact on human health and sometime led them to life risk. The Illegal street market in Dhaka is one of the greatest problems that faces by its residents and passersby every day. There are lots of illegal markets on the footpath of Dhaka’s street. There are growing some major and hazardous problem for this type of market. Moreover, the living environment became unhealthy and people are suffering from different types of problems. Throwing plastic bag, wastage of fish & chicken and rubbish is becoming common scenario at the footpath.

‘’108-km footpaths in Dhaka city is under illegal occupation’’ (The independent, 2015). These footpaths are occupied by illegal markets. Our Aim is to stop illegal market because; it creates so many Problems for passer-by, general people and for Government. There is a list of problems: 1) traffic jam; 2) breathing problem; 3) unhealthy environment; 4) time waste; 5) harassment; 6) hazardous; 7) accident; 8) pollution and others.

These are some common problems that faces by general people and passerby every day in every footpath in Dhaka city. Here are some major reasons that’s why this problem is not still solving.

1. Police. It is possible for police to shut down this illegal street market, but they are not concern for this issue. They act like solving this problem is not included in their duty.
2. Buyers. Customer agreed that illegal street market is problem, but they still purchase from there. When we asked them reason, they told us they can bought fishes in low price besides they don’t need go far away. So, they choose illegal street market instead other market/shop.
3. Political Entities. There is an involvement of some local political entities who took money from the sellers as rent of illegal place for selling fishes. If they are concerned about the environment of this place, they will never do such a negative thing. They have given the power to sellers for selling fishes in footpath that’s why local people don’t want to get involved in this.

At last, its true that. The Broken Windows Theory is applicable only for US context. Because the problems in USA and Bangladesh are not same. I think that, this theory has many limitations. It’s not effective everywhere. So, its better to modify this theory in Bangladesh or should make another theory for solving problems in Bangladesh.

The Effectiveness of the SARA Model and the Broken Windows Theory in Policing

In 1983, the four-step approach ‘SARA’ was initiated. It served as a “problem-oriented” approach to combat crimes. Community-oriented policing is a way for law enforcement officials and neighborhood leaders to work together for the good of the community, in which it would help identify and find solutions to problems occurring within that community. The first from the acronym ‘SARA’ is scanning. Scanning looks at reoccurring criminal activity, victims involved, common areas where crimes take place, and the kinds of crimes that take place. The communities that have the greatest levels of crimes are urbanized communities. The 8 major felonies are more likely to occur, which include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The issues are evaluated and further analyzed. Analyzing is the next step in this approach, which looks at the severity of the issues occurring within a community, and collects information from all ends from members of the community. Due to criminal behavior being so complex, many different motives could lead to or cause crimes. In addition, there are many possibilities as to what could lower crime rates. This includes factors such as increased incarceration, more community policing, a decrease in the use of crack cocaine, the economy being better, etc. After analyzing comes the response. The response implements methods that could serve as solutions for the issues that were analyzed. Further, they are assessed to make sure the solutions were effective and find alternatives to improve them. After, data is collected once the outcome is presented. This data can serve for statistical purposes when looking for “problem-oriented” approaches and new alternatives. Aforementioned, ‘SARA’ involves the police and the community working together. The purpose of this may not always work out because not every community has a good relationship or perspective on law enforcement. Many urbanized communities where crimes occur, do not have the best relationships with law enforcement officers so there are chances of minimal interaction or cooperation from community members.

The objective of ‘SARA is to work with the community to deter crimes like murder, rape, larceny-theft, etc. The outcome of this approach has been successful in some cases, and unsuccessful in others. It has also served as a “more cost-effective [method] and beneficial than addressing issues after the fact” (“Police”, n.d.). Policing strategies can be successful in reducing crime and disorder, in which they “all build on the best criminological research, involve careful planning, are data-driven, and are focused on particular crimes, places, or suspects” (Walker, 2015, p.110). An example is a POP project. A POP (Problem-Oriented Policing) project can focus on “hot spots and have a focused deterrence orientation” (Walker, 2015, p.110). These new methods take away from the notion that police cannot decrease crime rates. The Kansas City and Newark studies suggest that increased patrol does not decrease crime rates. Looking at the bigger picture, the outcome is different when looking at the innovative strategies used by the police (Walker, 2015, p.111).

In 1982, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling proposed the Broken Windows Theory. The Broken Windows Theory suggests that signs of disorder or misbehavior lead to criminal behavior. Wilson and Kelling argued that “one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing” (“Broken Windows Theory”, n.d.). The name of the theory is derived as a metaphorical way to describe “[signs] of disorder in an environment that goes unattended” (“Broken Windows Theory”, n.d.). This consists of minor crimes such as vandalism and disorderly conduct.

George Kelling believes the theory has not been applied properly by police departments. Kelling argues that “zero tolerance” policies have derived from the misuse of the broken windows theory. Zero tolerance policies “metes out predetermined consequences regardless of the severity or context of a crime” (“Broken Windows Theory”, n.d.). Further, these policies have negatively affected minority communities due to the “stop and frisk policies” that were set forth. This has led to years of police misconduct complaints by the minority community (“Broken Windows Theory”, n.d.). However, studies suggest that the broken windows theory has been deemed effective depending on how it is implemented. A study construed by Dr. Charles Branas back in 2016 led to the reparation of abandoned premises and the transformation of vacant lots into parks for the community in neighborhoods of high crime rates in Philadelphia. Dr. Branas concluded in his study that there was a 39% decrease in gun violence. This established a safer environment to live in and supported that crime can be reduced in taking action to improve the conditions of communities (“Broken Windows Theory”, n.d.).

In conclusion, the SARA model has been deemed effective in police work. The implementations of the SARA model have served as a foundation for police departments. Aforementioned the model allows for law enforcement to effectively pinpoint issues and solve them. As for the Broken Windows Theory, it is evident that it has not always been effective. Aforementioned, the implementation of this theory has led to negative relationships between police and the minority community. This derails from the objective of community police work. The issuing of citations due to the committing of minor offenses has been a factor in the divide between police and members of the community. However, when executed properly, it has helped improve overall conditions, reduced fear, and decreased criminal activity in many communities.