Citing numerous research studies using real-world data, experts on youth crime and gang violence generally agree that the most effective crime-fighting technique is a comprehensive community-based approach, noting that gang membership is often increased by putting marginal gang members in jail with hard-core gang leaders.
The Justice Policy Institute reported that the average gang member is active for a year or less. (See page 12 of the ACLU-NCA's May testimony below.) The goal is to dissuade youth from gangs, not to use “gang suppression” tactics that reinforce gang ties and prolong gang involvement.
Indeed, D.C.’s own experience underscores the experts. In 2003, D.C. created the Gang Intervention Partnership in Columbia Heights. From 1999 to that year, there were 21 Latino gang homicides in the neighborhood. From 2004 to 2006, after the intervention partnership, there was 1. Yet, in 2007, Mayor Fenty cut funding to the Gang Intervention Partnership and disbanded the MPD Gang Intelligence Partnership Unit. Now they claim an emergency of gang violence exists and want to adopt—not the effective policies they ended—but practices the experts say will only fuel more gang members and gang violence.
Councilmember Jack Evans (D – Ward 2) led the effort to pass the gang injunction bills on an emergency basis; he was supported by Jim Graham (D – Ward 1), David Catania (I – At Large), and Muriel Bowser (D – Ward 4). In a second (last-minute) effort to declare an emergency, Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6), joined the minority. On three occasions we testified before the District Council against the Mayor’s proposal. The ACLU-NCA also went into neighborhoods to educate residents and to mobilize public opposition. We were joined in this effort by the National Black Police Association and other community organizations. To their great credit, the other councilmembers rejected the gang injunction bills. Much credit is due Councilmember Mary Cheh (D - Ward 3) whose views as a constitutional law scholar were given great deference.
The local ACLU won a great battle in defeating the gang injunction bills, but we understand that the Mayor might seek to revive the proposal, especially if there is the pretext of an “emergency.” At the March 18, 2009, committee hearing, the ACLU opposed the so-called anti-gang injunction provisions of both the the Mayor’s Omnibus Crime Bill (B18-138) and Councilmember Phil Mendelson’s competing crime bill (B18-151), because they raised serious constitutional concerns, and would create unintended consequences that harm the anti-gang initiatives of local communities impede other anti-gang initiatives; moreover, the injunction provisions are based on a model that has very limited effectiven less in reducing crime elsewhere. The problem with using the injunction remedy of the civil law is that it denies persons the due process protections afforded persons accused of crimes. Most importantly, there is no right to a state-provided lawyer because the proceeding is nominally “civil.” (This is just one of the contitutional problems.) The March 18th testimony in PDF may be found here. In supplemental testimony on May 18, Staff Attorney Carl Takei focused on the anti-crime injunction provisions (see the May 18th testimony here), which he had also discussed at length on Dec. 5, 2008 (the Dec. 2008 testimony in PDF is here). WAMU's May 27th Kojo Nnamdi Show, discussed anti-crime injunctions and featured Carl and others. You can find Kojo's show online here. |
