Gang Injunctions Protect Our Communities - Essay Example

Gang Injunctions Protect Our Communities Gang injunctions have become a popular method to reduce criminal activity in particular neighborhoods. However, there is also a lot of debate about whether this policy should be used at all. Some people argue that gang injunctions can inadvertently cause racial tension or abuse of power. However, there is no physical evidence to support this argument. Statistical research of gang-related crime reduction in cities that have used gang injunctions shows that these injunctions have a positive effect. Gang injunctions will protect our communities from harm. Even though there is much criticism against gang injunctions, it has been shown that gang injunctions are the most appropriate method to deal with gang problems in our communities. Gang injunctions provide long-term safety to communities and neighborhoods in which gang-related criminal activities are occurring. Therefore, gang injunctions are a necessary means to protect our communities. However, research shows that gang injunctions may not be the only means to solving gang-related violence and crime problems. “Gang injunctions are not effective in dealing with gang violence because they do not address the roots of gang-related problems,” according to the ACLU (2). Research shows that law enforcement may be given too much power under gang injunctions. Furthermore, this power will lead to unnecessary actions that will create alienation among communities. Rene Quinonez, an ex-Norteno gang member and active volunteer in the HOMEY program, which attempts to help youth associated with gangs to begin a new life, says: “if someone’s name is in the injunction, then kids are going to stay away from him” (72). Despite this, statistical research indicates that gang-related violence and criminal activities are significantly reduced under the protection of gang injunctions. Forty-nine year old Tau Calo is a 16-year resident of Oakland Avenue, which is known for its crime and poverty. Calo mentioned her personal experience that gang injunctions are changing communities and making neighborhoods nicer and more suitable for families. Calo says: “it’s a lot better than it was before” (71). According to Kuz, “this dramatic change occured in the community only after the city’s attorney, Dennis Herrera, obtained a civil injunction against the Oakdale Mob. This created a so-called safety zone in the neighborhood.” Gang injunctions are designed to target gang members who are listed on the injunction list; it only targets gang members with criminal backgrounds or are associated with criminal activities. Neighborhoods are being harmed by gang-related activities, such dealing drugs, murder, robberies, and vandalizing property. All of these were regular activities before the injunction came into place. According to Kuz, “there were dozens of gang-related murders in San Francisco this year, and safety zones would have enabled officers to choke off sidewalk commerce, as alleged gang members would have been unwilling to risk arrest for an infraction as minor as loitering or breaking curfew” (78). The injunction removes gang members off the street and prohibits them from associating with one another—this will reduce potential crime in neighborhoods. In Calo’s story, her youngest son was shot on the sidewalk while gangs were shooting at each other. Most gang-related criminal activities involve illegal firearms, so law enforcement should be authorized with the appropriate power to perform their duties, and injunctions help to do this. Furthermore, the Oakland neighborhood is not the only successfully example of a community susceptible to crime; all over the nation there are many high crime neighborhoods that have common aspects, such as being poor, mostly minorities or black, and controlled by guns, drugs, and fear. Gang injunctions provide security to these particular neighborhoods. Also, gang injunctions could interact with social programs so that a better outcome is reached. Information sharing and co-operation will achieve many benefits. Although gang injunctions are frequently accused of racial profiling in certain communities, there is no fact to prove that these injunctions create racial problems. Furthermore, gang injunctions will help to create a more diverse community. According to ACLU, “gangs that have been targeted by injunctions are invariably black and Latino and come from low-income neighborhoods. This shows serious concerns that injunctions are just another form of racial profiling” (1). “Injunctions target particular communities—communities of color—and criminalize otherwise legal activities” says Angela Davis in her article “Oakland residents must stop the gang injunctions.” Some Black and Latino-dominated neighborhoods, such as east Oakland and Fruitvale, are targeted by gang injunctions. This is the link that leads us to relate gang injunctions to racial profiling. Many people believe that injunctions will isolate particular neighborhoods and create segregation between neighborhoods. Existing segregation between Black/Latino and white neighborhoods will be amplified by tagging the injunction label to them. This is just like telling people to stay away from certain neighborhoods because of the injunction tag to a particular neighborhood. Although many people argue that a city’s gang injunction policy will divert resources, such as financial assistance, that is supposed to support community programs, such as those related to education, food, and social welfare. There is no physical evidence to show that a city’s gang injunction policy is of higher priority than social programs, and there is no evidence to show that financial support is shifted from social programs to the injunction. Furthermore, gang injunctions will not increase financial stress on the existing budget deficit because they will protect our communities by providing a cost-effective method of maintaining order in communities. In the article “Oakland residents must stop the gang injunction,” Angela Davis says that “this injunction diverts hundreds of thousands of dollars from resources and services that could provide both immediate and long-term solutions to violence” (1). “Tragically, these injunctions are being given priority over food security, mental and physical health, and education opportunities in Oakland” (2). Davis overwhelming shows that gang injunctions will squeeze out social programs that are making a positive contribution to improving problems within the community. Based on Davis’ point of view, most of these social programs are supported by the city fund or are operating under city’s funding in some fashion. Most of these social programs are created to help minority groups such as the black and Latino communities. Under a budget deficit, the resources of social programs will be reduced; actually it is likely that they will be eliminated altogether. Alternatively, these budget cuts will be used to support injunctions, which also target the same minority communities except in a different way. This is not the best way to address the root of the problem. However, there are no facts to support the argument about gang injunctions diverting money away from social programs. In the article “Fear vs. Fact: Oakland Gang Injunction,” John Russo says “Davis’ opinion about Oakland’s anti-gang injunction policy is based on misinformation and an outdated ideology…” (1). Furthermore, Russ quotes Davis’ argument in his article, “they told students that Oakland’s civil gang injunctions would probably divert money away from schools, and transform everyday actions into offenses that could result in arrest” (qtd. In John Russo 2). Russo strongly responds to Davis claim that “of course Oakland’s gang injunctions don’t do any of those things” (2). According to Russ, “the amount of money spent on injunctions comes to just over $100,000; this came from the city attorney’s litigation budget and not from social or educational program budgets” (3). Russo provides statistics related to the injunction budget to prove that the money spent in gang injunction programs, which target particular crime-related gang activities in Oakland, only makes up a small part of the overall costs of law enforcement. Furthermore, this money does not take away from social needs; this is an undisputed fact! According to Russo, “the cost of investigating one homicide can outweigh the entire cost of an injunction case”(3). This clearly illustrated that gang injunction is the most effective way to counter crime activates during the budget deficit. In most of the cities where gang injunction policy is applied, the gang injunctions are financed by the city Attorney’s office and separated from other social program. Due to the unique design of the gang injunction, it could cut down a lot of court cost and reduce the workload in the law enforcement unit such like investigation cost, and provide the safety to the communities. Even though many social research studies suggest that the gang injunction has been accused of causing racial profiling in minority group, original design of the gang injunction policy is not intended to arise the racial tension and create segregation in the communities. Furthermore, the purpose of gang injunction is to eliminate the crime-related gang activities in particular communities. By doing this, gang injunction aims at improving the social environment, and releasing the existing racial tension, so it does sustain our communities. According to ACLU, “… gang injunction gives the police too much discretion to harass and target young men of color, even those how aren’t gang members”(2). According to Davis, “in fact, these injunction targets particular communities –communities of color—and criminalize otherwise legal activities”(1). The research suggests that under the injunction policy the law enforcement has been entitled over power, and the power may be abused. The abused power is used to target the minority group. In the article Don’t Shoot by David M. Kennedy, author assets, “police couldn’t, or didn’t differentiate between the helpless, like Timothy Thomas [who has been shot by the local law enforcement unit and later his death was found to be a mistake], the serious criminals, and everybody else” (2). Today more and more socialists believe that gang injunction is one of the causes of the racial tension in many cities . However, gang injunction in many cities is under very well developed administration system. According to Russo, “in Oakland, civil gang injunctions don’t give police any extraordinary power. Then don’t suspend our legal protections, including those against racial profiling”(2). Gang injunction is designed to target the gang members with criminal background. Russo claims, “in reality, Oakland’s gang injunctions are narrowly tailored restraining order against specific adults who are proven in court to be part of a criminal enterprise”(2). The unique design of the gang injunction does require City Attorney Office to administrate and oversight the program when it is executive by the law enforcement unit and prevent the power being overwhelming or abused. Gang injunction’s principle is to change the particular problem neighborhood but not establishingc isolation. The real problem that causes the segregation is within the communities. Kennedy testifies, “They are poor minority, mostly black; desperate, driven by guns, drugs and fear” (3).The communities are ruined by drug dealers, violence, and crime but not the gang injunction. On the other hand, gang injunction is addressing the root of the problem and tries to reshape the neighborhood by removing the toxic in the communities. Providing better safe social environment to the neighborhood will make the latter more open and integrate itself in to other neighborhood aiding in sustaining the neighborhood. Gang injunction as one of the methods to provide safety to our communities does fulfill its mission. There may be still a lot of argument on the injunction policy, but we may conclude from the fact that the social environment of the neighborhood has been greatly improved by the injunction policy. Read More