A new theory has emerged on how to replace broken windows theory: the best thing to do is to break windows, because if we don’t break windows we won’t have to.
That’s the conclusion of research by researchers at MIT and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who found that breaking windows actually makes people more productive and less likely to commit crime.
The research appears in the March edition of the journal PLOS One.
The researchers used a computer simulation to simulate the effects of breaking windows on crime rates.
In their experiment, they broke windows on three floors of a Manhattan office building and measured the number of times a criminal would break in.
They then compared those rates to the rates of break-ins and vandalism in a typical office building.
“We found that if you break in, the probability of burglary increases,” said study author Shoshana N. Goldberger, a professor of computer science and engineering at MIT.
“We also found that break-in rate increases when you break out of windows, when you take a break in between breaks in the break-through windows.”
Breaking windows also increases the risk of injury and death, the researchers found.
The researchers were not surprised by their findings, said David M. Goldschmidt, a senior research associate in the MIT Department of Computer Science and Engineering who led the study.
“It’s not surprising that breaking in breaks the window,” he said.
“Breaking out of broken windows is an important deterrent because you know that if it breaks, it’ll be broken in.”
The results were also significant when it came to predicting the number and severity of breakings, which are also a factor in reducing the risk to life, property and public safety.
Breaking in and breaking out of breaks was associated with higher crime rates, especially when compared to a control group of offices without broken windows.
Breaking windows and breaking windows is not only a deterrent for breaking in, it also is an effective deterrent to break-out.
This research adds to a growing body of evidence that breakable windows are a significant factor in public safety and that breakbreaking is a relatively efficient method of reducing crime.
To further understand the effect of broken window theories on public safety, the MIT researchers conducted an experiment in which they randomly assigned people to break in and break out in two separate ways.
First, they randomly split people into two groups, and then tested whether breaking in and leaving windows would prevent crimes.
After a short break in time, the people who had broken windows were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.
When the experiment ended, the two different groups were then given the chance to try again.
If the two separate groups were to break the window, then the first group was more likely to be violent, more likely than the second group to commit a crime, and more likely if they broke the window to commit another crime.
This is consistent with a broken window hypothesis.
“The second group, when breaking out, was actually less likely than those that didn’t break out to commit any crimes,” said Goldschitzer.
While the findings may not be as surprising as they first appear, they are a reminder that breaking-in is an inefficient way to reduce crime.
“What happens is that you break your windows, you break the windows, and you’re not going to break any more,” said N.G. Goldsteiner, a co-author of the study and a professor in the Department of Engineering and Applied Sciences.
“And then you have the third group that breaks windows, but then it has to go back into the breakroom, or you’ve got to go into a room that’s already been broken in and try to do it again.”