This chapter of the CQ Reader presents at the forefront the debate among scholars and policy experts over the merits of gang injunctions. Injunctions are essentially restraining orders that can include restrictions on movement, congregation, or action taken by members of specific gangs, and violation of an injunction is equal to a contempt of court citation. The debate over the use of injunctions to constrain gang activity comes at a time when many cities within the United States already are making use of the tactic; however, though they have been found constitutional and have shown slight success in certain communities, there is outcry by critics who see the practice as an abridgment of constitutionally granted civil liberties.

The arguments of two main individuals are presented in this chapter. Lawrence Rosenthal, a California law professor, is on the side of advocates for the issuing of gang injunctions. Believing that injunctions banning gangs from congregating are effective, Rosenthal’s article argues that this method of aggressive policing has potential to be as effective as aggressive policies like stop-and-frisk. Conceding that it is possible that civil liberties could be compromised by “unduly broad” injunctions, Rosenthal seems unperturbed and concludes that it is better to err on the side of law enforcement than to risk “continued instability.” Though I disagree generally with Rosenthal’s position, and wonder how he would react now in the wake of new rulings on aggressive police strategies like his cited example of stop-and-frisk, I think that his idea of community involvement with the policing process in the case of gangs is interesting. From previous chapters in the Reader, I know that a major problem faced by law enforcement is distrust and disdain for them in the communities where they work. Though often this is a hate more deeply rooted than simple dislike for police, I think that an approach more similar to the one put forward by Rosenthal could be beneficial not just in approaching gang violence, but in policing in general.

The other argument posed in this chapter was from Caitlin Sanderson, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. She contends that injunctions are not only ineffective, but are also a violation of civil liberties (despite the prior rulings affirming their constitutionality). Claiming that these injunctions fuel a prison pipeline and violate adequate due process by law enforcement, Sanderson makes the case contrary to Rosenthal that these policies do not have substantial impact on the violence committed by gangs, instead serving to incriminate minority youths and further deteriorate the relations between communities and police. After reading this chapter, I tend to agree more with Sanderson’s general argument. Personally, I feel that the greatest asset of the country’s criminal justice system is the idea of due process, of needing to be found in violation of a statute by a jury of peers before punishment can be doled out. In the case of injunctions, however, law enforcement officials, though not necessarily guided by malicious intent, tend to cast wide nets in their enforcement of anti-gang policies. These nets can catch individuals who are blatantly not involved, who were involved in the past and have since distanced themselves, and who are currently involved in gang activities. Each is a recipient of equal distinction and lifetime punishment in the eyes of the law. This, to me, seems wrong. After all, do not our justice system take into account a degree of forgiveness for those past accused, even convicted of crimes (think: sealing the records of juveniles). Additionally, why should resources be devoted to a policy that does not dissuade gang activities, but rather just repositions their conduct from out on the streets to indoors? A better approach, one that I hope the country is gravitating more towards such as Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul’s Redeem Act, would be to promote the well being of communities where poverty, lackluster education, and violence are in surplus. In targeting the root causes of gang formation, there doubtless would be greater long-term success in curbing gang activities than the short-term success won by liberty infringing injunctions.