News-Record.com

I'm with Kevin Pranis on this one. Lorraine Ahearn's recent column pretty much mirrored my thinking on the gang situation.

In Native Son, the white philanthropist supplies ping-pong tables to the rec center where the killer of his daughter hangs out. With enough ping-pong tables, Parks and Rec programs, and Nancy Reagan-types scolding "just say no," the thinking goes, we'll rescue these ne'er-do-wells from a life of social deviance. If only it were so simple. Serious and deep-rooted describes the problem rather precisely.

I'm with Kevin Pranis on this one. Lorraine Ahearn's recent column pretty much mirrored my thinking on the gang situation.

In Native Son, the white philanthropist supplies ping-pong tables to the rec center where the killer of his daughter hangs out. With enough ping-pong tables, Parks and Rec programs, and Nancy Reagan-types scolding "just say no," the thinking goes, we'll rescue these ne'er-do-wells from a life of social deviance. If only it were so simple. Serious and deep-rooted describes the problem rather precisely.

Try explaining to the grieving mother of a dead child killed in gang violence that instead of giving the police the resources to prevent her child's death we invested in midnight basketball and ping-pong tables.
Don't ignore the daily violence that police must deal with. Give the police what it needs to do it's job to the fullest of their ability while also looking at alternative programs for prevention.

Wouldn't it be very easy for police to go under-cover and join these gangs and get to the bottom of them? There must be a way that the local gangs are joining with National gangs. Internet? I think it would be easy to find out from the inside. What we need is a Dateline NBC type of attack on these future criminals. They are now filtering to our schools and I'm sure I'm a litte naive on the subject but a little under-cover can go a long way.

Allen, I completely agree that communities can't "police themselves out" of a gang problem, and that intervention is key and should be a major focus of any anti-gang plan. However, enforcement is necessary.

I've read several chapters of the (lengthy) Justice Policy Institute report that you refer to, "Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Policy Strategy Studies." But I've had a look at JPI's mission statement, too.

"The mission of the Justice Policy Institute is to promote effective solutions to social problems and to be dedicated to ending society's reliance on incarceration."

And I note that JPI is a self-described "progressive" non-profit, and that their board chair is an ACLU attorney, and that other board members' bios mention their focus on social justice and civil rights. And a further look around their web site reveals that JPI is indeed a progressive organization.

With all due respect for JPI and the work that they're doing, I wouldn't expect that any progressive group (with alternatives to incarceration as its mission) would produce a study that favors enforcement and incarceration. Consider the source.

With this issue, as with most things in life, a balanced approach seems called for. And I'm no expert, but IMHO, a balanced approach would include both early and ongoing intervention, and strong and focused enforcement.

Sounds like the Justice Policy Institute wants to hand "Get out of Jail Free" cards to all the criminals out there. I wouldn't consider them a credible source on this issue.

Intervention is great, but we can't ignore the enforcement end. Decent people deserve to be safe and violent criminals should be encarcerated, not coddled.

They do have an agenda at the Justice Policy Institute; they promote alternatives to incarceration.
But locking people up alone has been shown, empirically, not to work. Gang behavior often is increased and reinforced in prison.
I agree with Cara Michele and Sgt. Richey. You need both enforcement and intervention.
One won't work without the other.

Allen, I don't know that I completely agree. Sure, intervention is a good thing. Crime prevention always is the best solution.

However, there is no substitute for incarceration. None.

Crime rates in America have fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s, when tougher sentencing laws and mandatory jail sentences went into effect. The reason is simple - criminals can't commit crimes if they are behind bars.

Just saying:

In this case incarceration IS a potential problem. It solves some problems but creates others. Gang leaders are able to run their operations from within prisons, and the prisons themselves become recruiting stations. Unfortunately, some criminals--especially gang members--can and do commit crimes from behind bars. Also, most criminals don't stay behind bars forever.

Law enforcement is an important tool, but we need to fight this problem with other tools as well. These tools need to go beyond night basketball and rec centers (programs that often get co-opted by gangs) to include work and training opportunities, school retention programs, small-scale scattered-site public housing, and neighborhood integration.

I agree with Cara Michele. If the concern is gang-related criminal activity, then law enforcement needs to be a big part of the solution-- if we truly believe that effective law enforcement reduces crime (and I do).

One postscript: if we are concerned about prevention, we might want to look at doing what is needed to increase the percentage of two-parent families.

Tangential but related?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/19/60minutes/main2704565.shtml

Stop Snitchin'
.
.
Reluctance to talk to police has always been a problem in poor, predominantly African-American communities, but cops and criminologists say in recent years something has changed: fueled by hip-hop music, promoted by major corporations, what was once a backroom code of silence among criminals, is now being marketed like never before.
.
.

How does this affect enforcement?

Didn't read the above link supplied by the anonymous commenter, but I am familiar with the controversy around the "Stop Snitchin" thing.

Young black males don't always have positive interaction with police officers, and I think that's true for anybody who lives in a high-crime area. Because you "fit the description" or you "look suspicious," you could spend the next 10 or 15 minutes explaing that you don't sell drugs, don't belong to a gang, and have no intentions of breaking into somebody's house later on. You know, the stereotypical stuff.

The police sometime make assumptions. And sometimes, their assumptions are wrong. And to the person who is wrongly accused, the attitudes of some of the police officers can certainly rub them the wrong way. So, to avoid the hassle altogether, the mindset becomes, "Don't talk to the police for any reason. They're not very helpful or friendly."

To knock out the gang problem and fight other crimes, I think it's important for people - especially the young people - in the affected communities to have a relationship with police officers, so that they know their opinion matters and there's mutual respect.

And for the record, the criminal code of silence predates and is not exclusive to the African-American community.

As for the thought that the country incarcerated itself out of the supposedly monstrous crime rates of 1970s, there are sources which point out that (1) the lowering of crime rates was demographic and preceded all this hype on mandatory sentencing and the like; (2) we have gone on a spree of imprisoning nonviolent offenders and insuring they cannot be employed when they do get out, having learned those things needed for violent crimes; (3) we went stupid and pursued so-called anti-drug programs which were and are worthless, spending more than $30 billion or so annually (Govt stopped reporting all costs in 2002 and broke it out into agencies and dpts so no one would notice this idiot program--by now a jobs program--was costing lots and producing nothing of value--prices down, purity up, MJ the cash crop in NC); (4) in our area, we have the crime de jour, just to keep up the local constabulary, which like all local constabularies today are militarized with Fed money and that taken in dope deals, oops, I mean raids (eat whatcha kill, my granpa said).

So now, having incarcerated lots of of folks and made prisons and jails recruiting and training grounds for "gangs", we are suprised to see that we have "gangs in our towns". That is supplemented by the worship of guns by rabid fanatics who would rather us have a high armed crime rate so they can machine gun a deer or rabbit, or something (we hope not alive) in furtherance of their 2nd Amendment Rights and to hell with those of anyone else. So, now we got (1) untold loose guns, (2) ex felons with no jobs or prospects, (3) ethnic youth with no jobs and little prospects save stoop labor or yardwork (neither with benefits last I heard); (4) a propensity of youth to gather and hang out; (5) missionary work by those trained in prison, those from the cities, and miscellaneous others.

So, just like NC forests now, we have lots of tinder, lots of fuel and no water -- and lots of smokers. What is it that all seem not to understand. We have been advertantly or inadvertantly (like stupidly) building up to this and now--"We Have Gangs in Piedmont NC"! Call in Professor Harold Hill and his marching band. Lo, the enlightened have seen a great light and now we must publicly writhe and contort over this "new threat" (the WH will soonest conflate gangs with their fraudulent War On Terror). Hmmm...Do I remember the Puerto Rican gangs of the 1940s-50s? The KKK from 1870s until today? Skinheads and Neo Nazis? They are here, among us, save the PR, they aged out and quit I think- no matter we have the ones from Central America who arose from the ashes and squalor of American sponsored wars and our export of law breakers who had immigrated to the US-who sneaked back in having set up gangs in say Costa Rico - thanks Reagan and Bush 41 - blowback is bad.

So, why does everyone not take a deep breath, count to 1001 and then lets see how to dismantle the fuel and kindling we so cleverly put in place to in fact promote if not cause the situation. We sure dont need more "lock 'em" up mislogic lest we create larger problems in another 10-15 years of even larger scope and depth. I dispair of leadership in NC, much less locally, which could handle all these variables - we know it does not exist federally after seven years of GOP demolition and assault on everything in the world.
Reckon we can find adults to take on the tasks of solving the specified and implied tasks? Better hope so or we will have a plague of jobless, armed feral youth with nothing to lose. Do you grasp that?

As for the thought that the country incarcerated itself out of the supposedly monstrous crime rates of 1970s, there are sources which point out that (1) the lowering of crime rates was demographic and preceded all this hype on mandatory sentencing and the like; (2) we have gone on a spree of imprisoning nonviolent offenders and insuring they cannot be employed when they do get out, having learned those things needed for violent crimes; (3) we went stupid and pursued so-called anti-drug programs which were and are worthless, spending more than $30 billion or so annually (Govt stopped reporting all costs in 2002 and broke it out into agencies and dpts so no one would notice this idiot program--by now a jobs program--was costing lots and producing nothing of value--prices down, purity up, MJ the cash crop in NC); (4) in our area, we have the crime de jour, just to keep up the local constabulary, which like all local constabularies today are militarized with Fed money and that taken in dope deals, oops, I mean raids (eat whatcha kill, my granpa said).

So now, having incarcerated lots of of folks and made prisons and jails recruiting and training grounds for "gangs", we are suprised to see that we have "gangs in our towns". That is supplemented by the worship of guns by rabid fanatics who would rather us have a high armed crime rate so they can machine gun a deer or rabbit, or something (we hope not alive) in furtherance of their 2nd Amendment Rights and to hell with those of anyone else. So, now we got (1) untold loose guns, (2) ex felons with no jobs or prospects, (3) ethnic youth with no jobs and little prospects save stoop labor or yardwork (neither with benefits last I heard); (4) a propensity of youth to gather and hang out; (5) missionary work by those trained in prison, those from the cities, and miscellaneous others.

So, just like NC forests now, we have lots of tinder, lots of fuel and no water -- and lots of smokers. What is it that all seem not to understand. We have been advertantly or inadvertantly (like stupidly) building up to this and now--"We Have Gangs in Piedmont NC"! Call in Professor Harold Hill and his marching band. Lo, the enlightened have seen a great light and now we must publicly writhe and contort over this "new threat" (the WH will soonest conflate gangs with their fraudulent War On Terror). Hmmm...Do I remember the Puerto Rican gangs of the 1940s-50s? The KKK from 1870s until today? Skinheads and Neo Nazis? They are here, among us, save the PR, they aged out and quit I think- no matter we have the ones from Central America who arose from the ashes and squalor of American sponsored wars and our export of law breakers who had immigrated to the US-who sneaked back in having set up gangs in say Costa Rico - thanks Reagan and Bush 41 - blowback is bad.

So, why does everyone not take a deep breath, count to 1001 and then lets see how to dismantle the fuel and kindling we so cleverly put in place to in fact promote if not cause the situation. We sure dont need more "lock 'em" up mislogic lest we create larger problems in another 10-15 years of even larger scope and depth. I dispair of leadership in NC, much less locally, which could handle all these variables - we know it does not exist federally after seven years of GOP demolition and assault on everything in the world.
Reckon we can find adults to take on the tasks of solving the specified and implied tasks? Better hope so or we will have a plague of jobless, armed feral youth with nothing to lose. Do you grasp that?

As for the thought that the country incarcerated itself out of the supposedly monstrous crime rates of 1970s, there are sources which point out that (1) the lowering of crime rates was demographic and preceded all this hype on mandatory sentencing and the like; (2) we have gone on a spree of imprisoning nonviolent offenders and insuring they cannot be employed when they do get out, having learned those things needed for violent crimes; (3) we went stupid and pursued so-called anti-drug programs which were and are worthless, spending more than $30 billion or so annually (Govt stopped reporting all costs in 2002 and broke it out into agencies and dpts so no one would notice this idiot program--by now a jobs program--was costing lots and producing nothing of value--prices down, purity up, MJ the cash crop in NC); (4) in our area, we have the crime de jour, just to keep up the local constabulary, which like all local constabularies today are militarized with Fed money and that taken in dope deals, oops, I mean raids (eat whatcha kill, my granpa said).

So now, having incarcerated lots of of folks and made prisons and jails recruiting and training grounds for "gangs", we are suprised to see that we have "gangs in our towns". That is supplemented by the worship of guns by rabid fanatics who would rather us have a high armed crime rate so they can machine gun a deer or rabbit, or something (we hope not alive) in furtherance of their 2nd Amendment Rights and to hell with those of anyone else. So, now we got (1) untold loose guns, (2) ex felons with no jobs or prospects, (3) ethnic youth with no jobs and little prospects save stoop labor or yardwork (neither with benefits last I heard); (4) a propensity of youth to gather and hang out; (5) missionary work by those trained in prison, those from the cities, and miscellaneous others.

So, just like NC forests now, we have lots of tinder, lots of fuel and no water -- and lots of smokers. What is it that all seem not to understand. We have been advertantly or inadvertantly (like stupidly) building up to this and now--"We Have Gangs in Piedmont NC"! Call in Professor Harold Hill and his marching band. Lo, the enlightened have seen a great light and now we must publicly writhe and contort over this "new threat" (the WH will soonest conflate gangs with their fraudulent War On Terror). Hmmm...Do I remember the Puerto Rican gangs of the 1940s-50s? The KKK from 1870s until today? Skinheads and Neo Nazis? They are here, among us, save the PR, they aged out and quit I think- no matter we have the ones from Central America who arose from the ashes and squalor of American sponsored wars and our export of law breakers who had immigrated to the US-who sneaked back in having set up gangs in say Costa Rico - thanks Reagan and Bush 41 - blowback is bad.

So, why does everyone not take a deep breath, count to 1001 and then lets see how to dismantle the fuel and kindling we so cleverly put in place to in fact promote if not cause the situation. We sure dont need more "lock 'em" up mislogic lest we create larger problems in another 10-15 years of even larger scope and depth. I dispair of leadership in NC, much less locally, which could handle all these variables - we know it does not exist federally after seven years of GOP demolition and assault on everything in the world.
Reckon we can find adults to take on the tasks of solving the specified and implied tasks? Better hope so or we will have a plague of jobless, armed feral youth with nothing to lose. Do you grasp that?

wafranklin, are you really Connie Mack in disguise??

Naw, I perhaps just his doppelganger. I do in fact like his style.