Gang members seen talking to one another or standing together on public property could be fined or jailed under a new bill being pushed in the Legislature and supported by some prosecutors and Boston police.
The bill would give broad authority to police and prosecutors to bring civil lawsuits against reputed gangs or their members, forbidding them to hang out together in the neighborhoods and parks that police say they terrorize.
Such a law has been hailed as a successful crime-fighting tool in cities such as Fort Worth, San Diego, and Los Angeles, which has been imposing civil injunctions against gangs such as the Crips and the Bloods since the 1980s.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. It is holding people responsible for crimes they have not committed, simply because of association. Yes, those associations are not pretty ones. And the laws are stopping those associations. On the flip side, what about telling pedophiles that they cannot live in certain places, which makes sense? Deep thoughts required
But the approach has drawn the ire of civil libertarians who say it is too sweeping and violates the constitutional rights of people who have not been charged with any crime and may be wrongly identified as gang members.
But what is a gang? What if the gang is gathering peaceably, and asking for redress of greivence, as is part of the 1st Amendment? Will they be cited? And what of other “gangs?” What if this is extended to Code Pink, who do not always act within the law? Or a simple gathering of The Gathering of Eagles? Will the cities decide that they do not want those types of gangs?
The aim is obviously to deal with the criminal type gangs, such as the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Southern Mexicans, etc, but, one could easily see it extended to other groups in this PC world we live in.
“Hail, hail the gangs all here! What the hell do we care, what the hell do we care?” – S. Philly Mummers New Year’s Day song! Bloods vote Democratic, eh?