Gang Activity: Are Court Injunctions Really Effective?
Many towns are affected by gang activity. Such as the case in San Jose. The community of Rocksprings has issued injunctions against the thirty-eight gang members that frequently visit the area. The community claims that the use of drugs and weapons along with harassment and destruction of property are common occurrences. They claim that these occurrences are due to the acts of gang members. The injunctions place many limits on gang members, preventing the gang members from associating with one another in public. Also, they are not allowed to own a pager or beeper in a public place.
Studies who that the gang activity in Rocksprings has decreased since the injunctions were put in place. Despite the decrease in gang activity, there are many criticisms concerning the injunctions. First, by not allowing the gang members to associate with one another, the members' constitutional right of peaceful assembly is violated. Not all members of the gang are criminals. These members are being punished and stereotyped by law, simply because they seek companionship with that specific gang.
Besides infringing on the right to peaceful assembly, the injunctions can go overboard with their rules to the point of being ridiculous. For example, the injunction in the case of San Jose prohibits "using or possessing pagers or beepers in any public space." Possessing a pager is clearly not a criminal offense, yet the gang members are not allowed to do so simply because they are members of that specific gang.
Yet another reason the injunctions should be replaced is that they do not solve the problem gangs create, but merely hide it from society. While studies show that gang activity in the areas affected by the injunctions has declined, they do not give any information on the surrounding areas. The gang members may simply be moving their activity elsewhere. This defeats the purpose of the injunctions themselves. The injunctions simply hide the problem rather than solve it: out of sight, out of mind, as the famous saying goes.
Rather than hiding the problem through injunctions, we need to find a solution to address the root of the problem. By reinforcing enforcement officers around the areas of gangs, gang activity would decrease. Initiating social programs to help get the members out of gangs would decrease gang activity also. Many gang members are members mainly for the companionship that the membership offers. If the community offered alternative forms of companionship, for example through Boy Scouts or such familiar groups, then gang membership would decline along with gang activity. All these solutions help solve the problem more effectively than injunctions. These solutions accomplish the goal without imposing on anyone's constitutional rights.
Published by Shelly Taft
Shelly I'm a 25 year old mother to a beautiful four year old and a two year old. I have a bachelor's degree in Political Science and International Studies with a minor in German. I am also a birth and pos... View profile
- Summer Activity or Simmering Activity !
- Effective Remedies for Body Odor
- Difference Between Open Vs Closed Juvenile Court Proceedings
- How to Prepare for a DUI Court Hearing
- How to Address the Judge in a Court of Law
- Michael Vick Sentenced in Federal Court
- Breaking News: Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich Wins Court Case to Enter the...
3 Comments
Post a Comment4 California counties by extracting crime data from court records and police agencies. The control areas (communities with a similar gang problem but no gang injunctions) were matched for similar gang ethnicity, gang size, proximity, and gang activity. Calls for service were evaluated for one year pre-injunction and one year post-injunction using paired t-tests which revealed that gang injunctions reduce crime. Calls for service were significantly reduced compared to baseline and compared to matched controls. Part 1 (violent crime) calls decreased 11.6% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 0.8%, a net benefit of 12.4%. Part 2 (less serious) calls decreased 15.9% compared to baseline, while controls averaged a mild increase of 1.6%, a net benefit of 17.5%. Total calls for service decreased 14.1% compared to baseline, while controls averaged an increase of 2.3%, a net benefit of 16.4%. The bottom line is gang injunctions are an effective means to reduce crime, an
association theory that states criminal behavior is learned from interactions with other persons, and that criminal activity especially is learned within intimate social groups like gangs. Thus, it is hypothesized that when individuals that assemble or operate simultaneously as a group they will lean toward or away from crime according to the norms and beliefs of their associates. In plain English, when a kid hangs out with gang members they are often times drawn into crime by peer pressure.
Gang injunctions (civil law suits against gangs) are a proactive method to reduce gang crime in part by breaking up the ability of the gang to function as a group as opposed to individuals. Over the past 25 years in California, gang injunctions have increased despite their efficacy remaining unclear. I spent a couple of years researching this issue to determine whether gang injunctions reduce crime, when compared to baseline and matched control areas. I examined 25 gang injunctions from 4 Cal
Are Court Injunctions Really Effective?
YES they are.
I just read this article and saw several comments that are clearly inaccurate. First it should be noted that all members of a criminal street gang are criminals, they may engage in different levels of criminal activity (from loitering to murder), however they are all criminals to some degree. If they were not they would be of no use to the gang, by their very association they are mandated to participate in criminal activity committed by the gang. I agree gang members have the right to peaceful assembly, however a group of 10 gang members standing on a corner drinking beer or intimidating everyone who passes is debatable if that qualifies. It is true that these members are being punished and stereotyped by law, simply because they seek companionship with that specific gang. The no association clause in gang injunctions is based in part on the theories of Sutherland (1924), Thrasher (1927), and others who proposed differential