If we can't conform gangs, change the law.

[KeepItSimple]

It is my understanding that city ordinances are drawn up and presented to the city council for vote. Why not write a new ordinance that makes "being a member of a gang" illegal so that those folks can be arrested just for being part of an illegal organization. That way we don't have to wait for them to commit some heinous act in order to prosecute them. Secondly, in the same ordinance let's address the punishment. So there's not enough room in the jails as it is, let's not put them in jail. Let's put them in a tent city like in Arizona or NM or wherever it is. By day, they can clean the city, by night, they can rest in their comfy, cozy tents.

[maxim]

Another tactic that has shown promise has been the use of civil judgements against gangs. These require the cooperation of city counsel, as well as local judges, but can be very effective.

These require a court to find that the gang is a menace, a continuing criminal enterprise, and fashion enforcement sanctions against the gang and its members.

Some sanctions in other cities have included:

a prohibition against more than one gang member riding in a vehicle at a time
no more than two gang members being in each others company in public, in certain areas
no gang members allowed to enter or remain in certain parking lots, no matter how few or what time of day.The police require at least a level of suspicion known as "reasonable suspicion" in order to stop someone. Articulable facts and circumstance, plus the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, which cause the police to suspect that crime is afoot.

Civil judgements can allow the police to stop a gangmember for simply violating a judgement of the court. Violations are not per se arrestable, but are treated as contempt of court.

Of course, in a civil court the level of proof required is simply a preponderance of the evidence, instead of the criminal trial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Say 51% instead of 90% or so.

Contempt of court penalties can be jail time, usually several months. Of course, there is no right to a free attorney in civil court either...

[carsalesguy]

nice....any known cases where a city has acutually adopted it without much resistance from their "friend" lawyers.......

[KeepItSimple]

Another tactic that has shown promise has been the use of civil judgements against gangs. These require the cooperation of city counsel, as well as local judges, but can be very effective.

These require a court to find that the gang is a menace, a continuing criminal enterprise, and fashion enforcement sanctions against the gang and its members.

Some sanctions in other cities have included:

a prohibition against more than one gang member riding in a vehicle at a time
no more than two gang members being in each others company in public, in certain areas
no gang members allowed to enter or remain in certain parking lots, no matter how few or what time of day.The police require at least a level of suspicion known as "reasonable suspicion" in order to stop someone. Articulable facts and circumstance, plus the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, which cause the police to suspect that crime is afoot.

Civil judgements can allow the police to stop a gangmember for simply violating a judgement of the court. Violations are not per se arrestable, but are treated as contempt of court.

Of course, in a civil court the level of proof required is simply a preponderance of the evidence, instead of the criminal trial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Say 51% instead of 90% or so.

Contempt of court penalties can be jail time, usually several months. Of course, there is no right to a free attorney in civil court either...

If the violations are not arrestable, how does that keep criminals off the street? I'm green when it comes to the ins and outs of the law. Enlighten me, please...

[Maggie-Doodle]

Sounds like a good plan but I have to wonder if it has ever been contested? I would think that someone would have enlisted the help of the ACLU somewhere down the line...Although I agree the thugs don't deserve alot of rights, I would be surprised if none of them had screamed "that is against my civil rights!" Seems more and more people, especially the thugs scream that every chance they get.

In the Burg I don't know how far it would get with the judges we have. I really don't think any of them have the balls to stand up to gang members. I also see a problem with having enough police to monitor the situation. I am not trying to be a nay-sayer, just some food for though. It would great if it would actually work...we need all the tools in our arsenial we can get to keep the problem in check. Like I said, as far as I am concerned the thugs don't really deserve rights to begin with. They certainly don't earn them by their actions.

[hbm]

Maybe we could get the IRS involved. They drive expensive cars and have no income. All they ever got Al Capone on was income tax evasion.

[SoMissTV]

That was the basis of a "Drew Carey Show" episode, where Drew, Kate, Oswald, and Lewis couldn't be together.

The episode was funny; our situation is not.

[Astra]

Okay, define what constitutes "membership" and "gang."

You can't just go around arresting people because you think they might be associated with a gang. You can't even arrest people for membership in an organization, not unless there is reasonable evidence to tie them to a particular crime. Otherwise, wouldn't groups like the KKK have been declared "illegal" long ago?

If this kind of law were to go into effect, what's to stop someone from telling the cops, "Hey, you know X is in a gang" and getting X arrested? What kind of evidence to the contrary will be required to be let go?

There's a lot of room for abuse there. I'd rather see existing laws enforced and punishing people for actions they can specifically be linked to. It's frustrating sometimes, but it's better than punishing the innocent. Anything else runs a little too close to "thoughtcrime" for my taste.

[bartspoon]

anyone know if a person who is a known member of a certain gang that is known to carry guns, cant an officer stop that member and question him about gang activity and search him.

I know back when the NET team was thriving that is exactly what they did and they took lots of guns off the streets. Gang members knew they could be stopped and searched and they left their guns at home rather than lose them.

[daisy]

Bartspoon, weren't those the good 'ole days when we had law and order?

Didn't we also have a mayor that supported the police and believed all citizens deserved protection and service?

Oh, we also had a police chief that was a leader and mager that kept policemen and even attracted the cream of the crop to Hattiesburg?

[maxim]

The civil process takes a while. First, the city files a civil lawsuit against a gang and its members. It sues them, in other words. They are an organization and individuals, and they can be sued just like anyone else. The city is not looking for money, just injunctions against behavior that is not in and of itself criminal. For example, someone may get an injunction to prevent the NFL from allowing a high-school player to be signed. That wouldn't be a crime, but a court may enjoin such behavior. Again, in a civil court, there is no right to a free attorney. If the gang does not present a defense and the city has met its burden of proof (a preponderance of the evidence) the city wins by default.

Once injunctions are in place, officers submit reports of their violation. Officer Jones observes gangmembers Smith and Doe standing together at the intersection of Katie and John, in violation of an injunction against two or more gang members congregating there. No other witnesses are required to testify and place themselves at risk.

Smith and Doe are then summonsed in to civil court to answer for their contempt of the injunction. They may be fined or even jailed. If fined, their vehicles and homes may be seized and sold at auction to satisfy unpaid judgements.

For a much better idea of how it has worked, try the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197138.pdf
"Policing By Injunction: Problem-Oriented Dimensions of Civil Gang Abatement in the State of California". That report makes it clear that the program is not a panacea but rather has been effective and may be appropriate for some areas.

[izzy]

Okay, define what constitutes "membership" and "gang."

I'm wondering, too. Is any group of teenagers suspect? I understand that certain gangs are identified and watched, but how do TPTB decide which teen clique is potential serious criminal trouble and which is just a bunch of spoiled bullies and brats?

[carsalesguy]

The civil process takes a while. First, the city files a civil lawsuit against a gang and its members. It sues them, in other words. They are an organization and individuals, and they can be sued just like anyone else. The city is not looking for money, just injunctions against behavior that is not in and of itself criminal. For example, someone may get an injunction to prevent the NFL from allowing a high-school player to be signed. That wouldn't be a crime, but a court may enjoin such behavior. Again, in a civil court, there is no right to a free attorney. If the gang does not present a defense and the city has met its burden of proof (a preponderance of the evidence) the city wins by default.

Once injunctions are in place, officers submit reports of their violation. Officer Jones observes gangmembers Smith and Doe standing together at the intersection of Katie and John, in violation of an injunction against two or more gang members congregating there. No other witnesses are required to testify and place themselves at risk.

Smith and Doe are then summonsed in to civil court to answer for their contempt of the injunction. They may be fined or even jailed. If fined, their vehicles and homes may be seized and sold at auction to satisfy unpaid judgements.

For a much better idea of how it has worked, try the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197138.pdf
"Policing By Injunction: Problem-Oriented Dimensions of Civil Gang Abatement in the State of California". That report makes it clear that the program is not a panacea but rather has been effective and may be appropriate for some areas.


nice......too bad we have no backbone in city government as far as the mayor/asst mayor(fairley)/commodore (whatever she is)/police chief

[KeepItSimple]

I'm wondering, too. Is any group of teenagers suspect? I understand that certain gangs are identified and watched, but how do TPTB decide which teen clique is potential serious criminal trouble and which is just a bunch of spoiled bullies and brats?

First of all, according to the HA, the PD has a list of gangs/members on file that they have collected over a period of time. Go for those folks first. They have already been involved in some type of suspicious behavior if their name is showing up in a gang database. Secondly, the gangs who are apt to be involved in criminal behavior are serious enough about their gang affiliation that they have gang marks somewhere on their bodies or they fly colors. My fiance' is a former N.E.T. member and went to a number of gang schools and brought back literature with pictures of the insignia that each gang chooses as their "mark." So what if their is a little inconvenience to these people? Better they are inconvenienced a little now, than killed later when a gang member suspects them of being a member of a rival gang. We are all inconvenienced by the threat of violence against us on a daily basis. How is this any different?

[izzy]

Thanks, KeepItSimple, for explaining some of this. I do find the distinctions odd at times.
What about a group of Boy Scouts who are bullying a kid? Or a debate team that has a kegger? Or a baseball team with blond-headed jerks antagonizing motorists? They are exempt? (And please, let's not pretend these things don't happen.) Should they be inconvenieced? I mean, I would hope so.
I'm not saying we don't have problems with gangs. I am, however, confused about the terms.

[ynotme297]

don't forget about the white gangs and the mexicans, the latter of which is starting to gain a hold in the city. only on a small scale for now, but give them time.

[KeepItSimple]

Thanks, KeepItSimple, for explaining some of this. I do find the distinctions odd at times.
What about a group of Boy Scouts who are bullying a kid? Or a debate team that has a kegger? Or a baseball team with blond-headed jerks antagonizing motorists? They are exempt? (And please, let's not pretend these things don't happen.) Should they be inconvenieced? I mean, I would hope so.
I'm not saying we don't have problems with gangs. I am, however, confused about the terms.

All very good points. But I have to wonder if we're not making this harder than it has to be. I mean, really, don't you think it's going to be obvious when a group of folks is up to no good? And besides, if those boy scouts, debate team members or baseball players are doing the things you have mentioned, then of course inconvenience them. Those things are not right either. And probably, the lesson will be worth more than the inconvenience. Besides, how often are these people going to be out at odd hours, carrying weapons, or driving with more than a couple of people in their pimped out rides? Let's face it. The gang "look" can be spotted instantly in most cases.

[KeepItSimple]

don't forget about the white gangs and the mexicans, the latter of which is starting to gain a hold in the city. only on a small scale for now, but give them time.

There are quite a few white members in some of the more prominent gangs in Hattiesburg already. You might be surprised to learn just how many. Their plan is to recruit from all areas of social class, race, financial status, etc., so that the gangs have access to power on all levels.

[KeepItSimple]

I'm wondering, too. Is any group of teenagers suspect? I understand that certain gangs are identified and watched, but how do TPTB decide which teen clique is potential serious criminal trouble and which is just a bunch of spoiled bullies and brats?

What would be wrong with checking out even the spoiled bullies and brats? I think it would be a win win situation. Maybe take a little air out of those sails in the process. What has happened since "Doperee" and "NO-wynn" have forced the PD to lighten up on the problem areas of town, is a free for all in the hood. They need to be put back in their place, and made to respect the law and officers who enforce it. As it is now, they're not scared and in order for police to maintain control, the would-be criminals have to be afraid of something. Otherwise, it's like a non-stop party with no rules.

[cowgirl]

for real, hattiesburg does not have bonafide gangs. for the most part, they are young want-to-bees. hattiesburg's problem is that we don't have enough police trained/skilled officers to be proactive. as you increase the police force with african american officers, they have to be highly trained and taught the significance of gang suppression - otherwise they might NOT see the many negative far reaching impacts of gang presence. their youth involvement may have numbed their sensitivity to gang societal effects. gangs and their appearance will lower property value, stronly hurt schools and achievement and create and ugly image. if you are 40 - 50 officers short on you manpower needs, police can not press these pockets of crime effective. nobody wants to work with nor for the chief and mayor with their "greater than you" attitude. the sad thing is they think that they are the best leaders and administrators in hattiesburg's long history. it hurts my stomach to see us on a path of no return.

[Maggie-Doodle]

cowgirl, I want to disagree with you but did not want to give you neg. rep... Your statement about black officers and training confuses me..WHAT exactly would an increase in "africian american officers" have to do with the situation? You talk as if "they" have to be highly trained and taught different than the white officers. "ANY" new officer has to be highly trained and taught about gangs as well as other stuff before they can become effective...COLOR has nothing to do with the situation as far as I am concerned. As a matter of fact some of the black officers may have a better understanding of the situation that the white officers.
I also disagree with you on there not being bonafide gangs in the Burg. There may be alot of wannabees but there are also those who have gang authority and can they can prove it to you....some of the random acts of violence can probably be attributed to gang iniation (sp).

[KeepItSimple]

I just had another thought. Why not develop a new branch of our police department and call them the "fashion police." They could stop and confront any person wearing their pants three or more inches below the stride and cite them for fashion faux pas. In the process, they would probably discover drugs on every person they stopped. And none of us would have to look at their underwear anymore...