Category: Response Papers (March 20) (Page 2 of 2)

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.

While reading “Fighting Gangs” in Urban Issues: Selections from CQ Researcher Eighth Edition it occurred to me that no tactic employed by the courts or law enforcement has effectively reduced gangs and gang related crimes long term. Any good tactic reduced gang related violence for a short term, but, as the chapter points out, although gang violence has decreased, gang related crimes are still on the rise, evolved and adapted for the 21st century. Perhaps the real way to eliminate gang crime would be to look at the cause of gang membership, and prevent gangs from growing.

Information from the chapter has indicated that the bulk of gang members are older adolescents and young adults. Additionally, it would seem that the motivating factors to join a gang all basically stem from a lack of good social and economic standing and no where else to turn to. When different ethnicities created gangs, it was in response to an environment they found to be against them. Organizing into a gang gives a group the ability to draw territory boundaries, and enforce their will in their neighborhood. Rather than be the victims of society, these people are rising up in their own way.

Like law enforcement issues, it would seem the best way to prevent the expansion of crime is to provide neighborhoods with a properly functioning education system, and affordable living. How to do that is out of my depth, but it is clear that as more youth feel rejected and oppressed by their environment, more youth will take matters into their own hands. And not in a way that benefits the society they hate.

The article “Fighting Gangs” indicates that gangs have existed for centuries across many parts of the world. Comprised of the outcasts, and the impoverished of society, they form groups that enable them to fight their way to success. Their success can be measured by territorial control of certain neighborhoods, by financial success through profitable criminal behaviors such as selling drugs, or, more recently, by exerting power and control through the means of social media. What these gangs have in common, regardless of their ethnic make-up or location, is the banding together of underprivileged individuals in society for the purpose of succeeding outside that society. Through aggressive means, these gangs seek to achieve, often illegally and with much force, the goals they wish to attain. They often do this in circumvention of society’s authorized ways of attainment.

For centuries, as long as there have been gangs, the law enforcement agents of their times have not been successful in fighting gangs.  Law enforcement’s attempts to bring down the gangs merely makes them pop up on different street corners, get involved in different criminal activities, and, if anything, may cause them to escalate their fighting techniques to regain their supremacy. I submit that it would be better, as others suggest in this article, to wage peace rather than war with gang members. There can be no winners in a wrestling match between policemen and gang members. Instead, we would all be better served by a two-pronged approach. One method would be to work with potential newly approachable gang recruits to educate them about all the negativities associated with gang membership and to give them alternative approaches by which to succeed. Another method would be to work with those gang members that are already part of the group, by offering them different ways to get out of their gangs and succeed in society. I believe that the best approach to use with respect to engaging the future and the currently enlisted gang members is through the use of gang “interventionists” who have lived the gang life and therefore are aware of what makes people join gangs and the pitfalls of being a gang member. The employment of these interventionists, former gang members, would be helpful in understanding and working with current gang members, since they have lived through the same perils. Moreover, the gang interventionists that would be employed would themselves be supported in their financial and social comeback to society.  In order to help the interventionists succeed (this article brings up that some do not), they would need to be given the right tools to engage in their fight against gangs. Preparing the interventionists properly would lead to their getting involved in creating meaningful educational, mental health, and employment opportunities for those who are not yet accepted members of society. There appear to be two promising laws soon to be enacted by Congress, “The Youth Promise Act,” and the “Redeem Act,” that could strongly support the work of gang interventionists. The “Youth Promise Act” would emphasize educational, mental health, and outreach programs to prevent young people from joining gangs. The “Redeem Act” would help those who are already gang members and have been incarcerated by sealing the records of minors and giving second chances to those who did not commit violent crimes. The best way to fight gangs is not with police force but rather through peaceful social rehabilitation.

This week’s reading of the CQ Reader, regarding gang violence, was extremely troubling, while also being impeccable in its timing.  Coming from Long Island, until very recently it had been my impression that, with distinct exceptions, gang violence was not an issue we suffered with.  These exceptions had always been in lower income areas, such as in portions of Hempstead.  However, within the last week, I was speaking with my mother who works with the Nassau County Legislature, and she told me that there have recently been gangs transplanted from Los Angeles who had been operating within Nassau County, to the point that there are talks to set up a division within the police force simply to combat the gang violence.  This recent news made this week’s reading far more relevant to the area which I come from, piquing my interest to say the least.

While it did interest me to learn that women were becoming increasingly involved in gangs, as well as the fact that our military bases suffer from gang activity as well, the portion of the reading regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of injunctions being used to prevent gang activity fascinated me.  This issue plays very well off of last week’s reading regarding racial profiling.  The issue in my mind is sticky for two reasons, the first being that these injunctions are primarily used with a racial undertone, so that very specific communities are targeted.  On top of this concept comes into play the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of assembly.  This means that there is no inherent problem with gangs.  The issue comes into play when gangs begin to partake in criminal activity, which is both a crime at the federal and state level.  So a fine line is being danced when broad injunctions are issued to stop gang assembly, while also trying to ensure that a) these gangs are partaking in criminal activity b) the enforcement of the injunction is not being used to target specific groups.  With these two thoughts in mind, especially after having read last week’s reader, I am not convinced that injunctions being used to stop gang violence is an acceptable practice, much like stop and frisk.  While both may be effective, it is a slippery slope when we allow the rights of others, Constitutional rights, to be taken away, simply for our own peace of mind.

On another note, I’ve decided that every issue which our society seems to face nowadays, be it environmental, profiling, gang violence, etc. is either preventable or at least able to be alleviated in some form, by an increase in education.  With this in mind, I apply this concept to the gang issue as well.  Practically speaking, as per the reading, it doesn’t seem that there is the man power within the police force to arrest every gang member, and even if there was, it doesn’t seem that arrests are an effective way of stemming the tide of gang violence.  As such, it would behoove us as the greater community, and future leaders of the City of New York, to work to lessening the causes which lead one to join a gang. The first way to do this would be to work to ensure that children within communities that gang members traditionally come out of are set up with the best possible chance to improve their socio-economic status, if they so desire.

As I began reading this chapter on fighting gangs in Urban Issues, the first thing that came to mind was that I take a lot for granted. I have lived in a decently safe neighborhood in Queens from the time I moved to New York and I also attended schools and now college in relatively safe neighborhoods as well. Hence, it never really occurred to me how big of a problem gangs really are in the United States. According to Urban Issues, gangs have posed a serious threat in the United States especially as the number of gang related crimes are on the rise. This is particularly due to social media which makes it much easier for gang leaders to recruit new members. It was quite surprising to me how there is an increase in the number of women and girls who are involved in gangs since police are least likely to suspect women as criminals. It was even more surprising to me that some of them actually take up leadership roles in gangs. It was also surprising to me that military bases also have gang related activity especially dealing with prostitution. In addition, one thing I found interesting was that prison gangs tend to operate street affiliated gangs from inside their institutions. This is supporting evidence that there needs to be even stricter security in prison facilities to prevent gang related operations. However, there will always be limitations in how much guards can see and scrutinize.

One major systematic flaw I noticed from reading this chapter was the fact that sometimes crimes are reported as “gang-related” even when they aren’t since states receive extra funding to fight gang crime through state and federal programs. This seemed corrupt to me but at the same time maybe the funding that states receive in the first place to deal with their current gang situation isn’t merely enough and so they find the need to “trick” the system. However, when they do “trick” the system, it’s unclear whether or not a gang problem actually does exist or they’re just doing it to get additional resources, as Urban Issues states. To fix this discrepancy, I think the federal government should come up with a more defined provision of gang related activity that is applicable to all states and the state government should come up with its own.

Another issue I found quite interesting was the use of injunctions to stop gangs. According to Urban Issues, injunctions restore neighborhoods by clearing out gangs that intimidate residents. However, I think injunctions don’t exactly fix the problem. This is due to the fact that affiliates in gangs can easily move elsewhere and start up their gang there and at which point gang activity would have been displaced and not stopped as was intended. The solution therefore to stop gangs in communities, is to provide more resources and greater job opportunities so that people wouldn’t have a reason to turn to gangs in the first place. The main cause of gangs in neighborhoods is poverty and to combat this issue, there should be more programs that stress the importance of education and facilities that offer vocational training.