Criminal Justice And Gang Injunctions - Research Paper Example

Gang Injunctions In San Francisco Introduction The US like most countries has had to deal with criminal gangs over the years. The various law enforcement agencies have had to employ various strategies to combat crime within their areas of jurisdiction. In the recent years, the various police departments and the offices of the district attorney have been forced to employ restraining measures. The measures include gang injunctions to reduce the level of gang crimes in their areas of operation. San Francisco is the financial and cultural capital of northern California. The city of San Francisco has been most affected by gang-related crimes. The law enforcement agencies have sought to use gang injunctions as a way to reduce these crimes in the region. A gang injunction is a form of restraining order that prevents the alleged gang members from a certain freedom of association or movements within a specified geographical area. This is meant to change the behavior of the gang members hence reducing their chances of effectively engaging in criminal activity or public nuisance (Calavita, 2010). History of gang injunctions Civil gang injunctions were first heard of in the early 1980s in southern California. The strategy was employed as an experimental move by law enforcement agencies. This was applied in neighborhoods that were quickly developing. It was meant to reduce on the level of nuisances such as vandalism and the habit of using graffiti on walls by gangs in the area. This injunction was temporary. The first effective gang injunction was effected in the city of Los Angeles against a gang called the Playboys Gangsta Crip in the year 1987. This was followed by another one in 1992 against the Barrio Elmwood Rifa gang. This barred the alleged members of the gang from gathering, appearing, walking, standing or hanging out with any member of the gang. Also in this year of 1992, the city council of Chicago enacted a law such that the police were given authority to disperse any gathering in case they suspected that they were gathering for criminal purposes. In the year 1997, gang injunctions were included as a part of the constitution and the implementation framework was developed. In the year 2007, the first amendment as far as gang injunction is concerned, addressed the freedom of association and expression. Presently, the issuance of gang injunctions is handled with much stricter measures. The city attorney is the one supposed to mention the individual names of each member of the gang. He is supposed to give a list of specific things and activities they are restrained from. This can only be achieved after a thorough analysis of the activities and members of a gang (Greene & Gabbidon, 2009). Arguments against gang injunctions The use of gang injunctions as a method of reducing criminal activities in the society has received a number of criticism from the general public and various organizations. As Jensen, (2007) puts it, the use of gang injunctions is ineffective since its implementation in one geographical area results in criminal activities spilling over to the neighboring areas. This is because it is hard to effectively monitor the activities of the gang members; hence it does not meet its objectives (Jensen, 2007). From some critic’s point of view, the gang injunction strategy of dealing with crime is a way of targeting some minority groups in the society. This is because, from the analysis done by various groups, the majority of the target groups are Latinos and African Americans. This in a way creates a gap between the minority groups and the majority groups of citizens as far as upholding of civil rights is concerned (Chaskin, 2010). The gang injunction policy does not explain to the gang members how to remove their names out of the list of the gang members under injunction. The only official way available is if a person challenges the injunction in a supreme court. This way out is very expensive for most gang members who cannot afford the services of an attorney. This means that any person who found his/ her way into the list by mistake may have to live without enjoying their rights for their entire life. Also, the members who decide to break away from the gangs and engage in any meaningful activity may continue to suffer the consequences of the injunction (Shipley & Arrigo, 2012). Another factor against gang injunctions is gentrification. This may happen when a particular neighborhood is put under an injunction causing the property in that therein to lose value. The drop in property value causes many people to move into that neighborhood due to cheap real estate hence increasing the population density and the problems associated with it. The high cost of implementation of gang injunctions is another issue of concern. It’s estimated that the cost of implementation of a gang injunction to a gang in a particular neighborhood is about as high as 40, 000 dollars. The costs associated with a drop in value of property ranges in billions of dollars. This makes the cost of implementation of gang injunctions much higher than its benefits (Arnold, 2011). In many cases, gang injunctions are applied to gangs uniformly with an assumption that it can work for any gang. This has proven ineffective since different gangs get involved in different activities and have different ways of operating that are not accommodated in the injunction. This makes gang injunctions a failure (Leap, 2012). One of the main purposes of a gang injunction is to prevent crime before it happens. For this reason, individuals are included into the list of gang members by association rather than by proof of having committed a crime. With this criterion, many innocent people find their way into the list by mistake. This results in a case where an innocent person’s rights are violated. In the process of implementation of an injunction against a particular gang where the gang members are denied the freedom of association, family ties and meaningful friendships are broken. In the process, not only the gang members who are in the list suffer, but also their loved ones. Also, the gang members are barred from engaging in any meaningful employment once they make it onto the list. Arguments supporting gang injunctions From a study of the history of gang injunctions, the evolution of its implementation has increased its effectiveness over the years and at the same time reducing the level violation of civil rights of the innocent. Studies have indicated that in cities where gang injunctions have been implemented, the rate of gang related crimes reduced by a significant margin within a short period. The policy offers a way out of the list of gang members. A person who has been included in this list can go to the Supreme Court to petition for his or her name to be removed from this list. It is only the city of San Francisco and Los Angeles where a gang member can petition directly to the city attorney to have his or her name removed from the list. Impact of the policy on Latino communities Statistics obtained by various groups in the city of San Francisco indicate that the gang injunctions are issued mostly in neighborhoods dominated by Latinos. The second most affected group is the African Americans. This has contributed to an increment in the number of broken families. The economic conditions of the families involved have also been affected since the gang members targeted cannot get any meaningful employment. This has led to an endless circle of crime in these neighborhoods. Ramifications of this policy on the Latino population generally The population of these Latino communities has also been reduced greatly as the gang members are pushed out of the ‘Safety zones’ to different regions displacing them from their comfort zones and their families. Future of gang injunctions As much as the policy of gang injunctions has been criticized over the years, the continued evolution of its implementation framework is making the policy more and more effective by the day with future prospects of reducing crime activity considerably. Another scenario in the future of gang injunctions is a notable reduction of the minority populations in most parts of the USA where the policy has been adopted. This will be as a result of the authorities taking advantage of the policy to push them out of these regions (Barack, 2007). Conclusion Even though this is so, the main objective of law enforcement is not to eliminate or contain the law breakers but to rehabilitate them. This policy is not serving that purpose. The best approach would be to involve a system that engages the gang members to some meaningful economic activities and civil education that would make them better members of the society alongside the gang injunction policy. Works cited Arnold, E. K. (2011). Oakland Gang Injunctions: Gentrification or Public Safety?. Race, Poverty & the Environment, 18(2-2011). Barak, G. (2007). Battleground: Criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Calavita, K. (2010). Invitation to law & society: An introduction to the study of real law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chaskin, R. J. (2010). Youth gangs and community intervention: Research, practice, and evidence. New York: Columbia University Press. Greene, H. T., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2009). Encyclopedia of race and crime: 1. Los Angeles: SAGE. Leap, J. (2012). Jumped in: What gangs taught me about violence, drugs, love, and redemption. Boston: Beacon Press. Shally-Jensen, M. (2011). Encyclopedia of contemporary American social issues. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. Shipley, S. L., & Arrigo, B. A. (2012). Introduction to forensic psychology: Court, law enforcement, and correctional practices. San Diego, CA [etc.: Elsevier academic press. Read More