was and is perceived by the general public to have reduced crime, and that is, without a doubt, one of the primary reasons why deBlasio chose Bill Bratton, Giuliani's former commissioner, as his own police commissioner.
The debate is not whether "broken windows" actually was responsible for the large drop in crime rates, but rather whether people believe it was responsible and therefore support the policy.
There is also the issue that enforcement of petty crime statutes is often supported because it's a quality of life issue, particularly to many middle and upper class whites, including a great many liberals. People in NYC definitely noticed when vagrants were no longer seen as often on the streets, gentrification intensified in areas like Time Square, loud music and other annoyances virtually disappeared on the subways, no one bothered you any longer at the ATM, etc. "Broken windows" may not have truly impacted murder and rape rates, and it may have had a disproportionate impact in poor neighborhoods, but that doesn't mean it wasn't very noticeable and positively received in areas where people voted in large numbers and donated money and time to politicians. There's a reason why Giuliani was so overwhelming reelected to his second term. To a significant part of the NYC public, life just felt safer and more secure.
Don't confuse an academic discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of certain policing policies with hardcore local politics, economics (both revenue from citations and increased economic activity derived from security) and human perception. The police unions definitely understand this, deBlasio actions and statement demonstrate that he certainly believes it, and many polls support it. To deny this reality would be foolish when ascertaining the best strategy to enact police reform.
= new reply since forum marked as read
