NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits

Several US cities including Los Angelas and Fort Worth have been sueing gangs and induvidual gang members in an attempt to lower crime rates.

However, some former gang members say such legal maneuvers wouldn't have stopped them.

Don't you mean... MOST?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits

Several US cities including Los Angelas and Fort Worth have been sueing gangs and induvidual gang members in an attempt to lower crime rates.



Don't you mean... MOST?

Well, most cities are out of ideas on how to stop urban gangs from continuing to grow.

Even though I think sueing them is pretty silly, what do you propose they do?

Well, most cities are out of ideas on how to stop urban gangs from continuing to grow.

Even though I think sueing them is pretty silly, what do you propose they do?Make work projects? You don't real hear about many problems involving Newfie Gangstars.

Hmm, why not just send them to Africa and the Middle East? They already know how to work a gun,

What?

I cant see how this will change anything. It's not like gang's have a history of submitting to the laws of society?

I may not have any ideas but I can still see how this one is kind of rediculous. The problem with this whole idea being that gang members have no respect for authority f any kind and while this may work for a time they will eventualy just go back to thier old routines anyway. Just my thoughts on the matter... technically it seems the best way to solve the problem other than conjuring up a utopia paradise is mass executions of gang members. Personally there are times when either solution is fine to me.

First Sudan, now street gangs? When are people going to learn that suing only works when you can make the loser pay?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits

Several US cities including Los Angelas and Fort Worth have been sueing gangs and induvidual gang members in an attempt to lower crime rates.



Don't you mean... MOST?

My god! They could make.... hundreds of dollars! :eek:

My god! They could make.... hundreds of dollars! :eek:

Yeah, but if you happen to have a time machine on hand, those hundreds of dollars are a whole lot nicer.

If you drop gangs in the middle of the Middle East, or Africa, then they'll see that they aren't really 'tough' or 'gangsta' and it'll send a message to the rest of the gang bangers.

*runs*

Well, gangs already have to deal with cops and other gangs and violence and stuff. They're used to all that by now.

But lawyers? That's heavy artillery.

Yeah, but if you happen to have a time machine on hand, those hundreds of dollars are a whole lot nicer.

You make an interesting point. Silly, but interesting. :)

Gang injunctions have been effective in many places - it could work here. They've been used since the early 1980s and have stopped gangs in some places. It's nothing new. :)

If you drop gangs in the middle of the Middle East, or Africa, then they'll see that they aren't really 'tough' or 'gangsta' and it'll send a message to the rest of the gang bangers.

*runs*

Although this scheme is politically incorrect, I have to admit dumping criminals in other countries did work for Castro...

Although this scheme is politically incorrect, I have to admit dumping criminals in other countries did work for Castro...

And when the British dumped criminals in Australia in the 17th to 18th century.

If you drop gangs in the middle of the Middle East, or Africa, then they'll see that they aren't really 'tough' or 'gangsta' and it'll send a message to the rest of the gang bangers.

*runs*

Absolutely right. If only we could ship them out in that style.

And when the British dumped criminals in Australia in the 17th to 18th century.

18th to 19th. Australia's not that old.

And why can't we ship them out to warzones? Make gang membership expressly illegal, and the penalty four years service in a US version of the Legion Etranger. More troops on the ground, and nobody cares if these ones get killed.

Yeah, but if you happen to have a time machine on hand, those hundreds of dollars are a whole lot nicer.

Damn if that ain't your excuse for everything now.
:(

Hmm, why not just send them to Africa and the Middle East? They already know how to work a gun,

What?

So, you're saying to just give them military fatigues? :p

I wonder if they are getting this tactic from the Southern Poverty Law Center. IIRC, the SPLC used lawsuits to basically wipe out some of the white supremacist groups back in the 80s and 90s. Basically sued them into non-existence.

Don't know if it will work on gangs though, as the white supremacists were incorporated...

So, you're saying to just give them military fatigues? :p

Eh, most of 'em already have the camo anyway.

Or am I behind on my urban fashion?

I dont see how this can be constitutional - barring people from social interaction violates the right to assembly. When someone is convicted of a crime, you can make their not associating with their gang a condition of parole, but you cannot abridge the freedom of a citizen who has not committed a crime.

That you are targeting a gang is irrelevant - it doesnt matter if you are issuing legal injunctions to keep gang members from speaking to people (prohibited from speaking to people in cars?) or keeping some religious group from talking or keep them coloreds from getting together to talk about protesting.

Essentially you are picking a minority out to allow unwarranted police harassment for no other reason than looking like you might belong to that minority.

Is that not all US lawyers do now? sue people and squeeze as much money as they can from them? i cant really see how it would work myself, bring back national service i say

what would you sue them for anyway?

I dont see how this can be constitutional - barring people from social interaction violates the right to assembly. When someone is convicted of a crime, you can make their not associating with their gang a condition of parole, but you cannot abridge the freedom of a citizen who has not committed a crime.

That you are targeting a gang is irrelevant - it doesnt matter if you are issuing legal injunctions to keep gang members from speaking to people (prohibited from speaking to people in cars?) or keeping some religious group from talking or keep them coloreds from getting together to talk about protesting.

Essentially you are picking a minority out to allow unwarranted police harassment for no other reason than looking like you might belong to that minority.

Except they're not suing based on being in a gang, they're suing based on the activities of that gang. If a gang doesn't participate in anything illegal (cause you know how likely that is) then there is no reason to sue.

Except they're not suing based on being in a gang, they're suing based on the activities of that gang. If a gang doesn't participate in anything illegal (cause you know how likely that is) then there is no reason to sue.

Sitting on a porch with your friends is not illegal. Neither is talking to people on the street. Yet, suspected membership in a gang in which you might participate in illegal activities would suddenly make those things illegal for someone?

They aren't talking about suing for committing a crime. They're talking about keeping them from doing something perfectly legal because those people might commit a crime at sometime or other.

Yet, suspected membership in a gang in which you might participate in illegal activities would suddenly make those things illegal for someone?

Although I don't approve of the method, I agree that prevent the crimes from happening at all is better than letting the crimes happen and then punishing them. Immediate example? Counter-terrorist actions at the airport. (and extreme, I realize. It's an analogy, cmon!)

Although I don't approve of the method, I agree that prevent the crimes from happening at all is better than letting the crimes happen and then punishing them. Immediate example? Counter-terrorist actions at the airport. (and extreme, I realize. It's an analogy, cmon!)

It's nice that you would give up your liberty for "protection", but I simply don't trust the government that much. I will not advocate giving the government the power to decide who I will and will not associate with when I am committing no crime.

It is best to prevent crime, but if we have to give up liberty to do it, the cost is way too high.

Counter-terrorist actions at the airport don't ban people from doing things that are perfectly legal. They check to make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal or against airport/airline regulations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070729/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits

Several US cities including Los Angelas and Fort Worth have been sueing gangs and induvidual gang members in an attempt to lower crime rates.



Don't you mean... MOST?

Well, that's the strategy of our world. Sue the pants off everybody.

It's nice that you would give up your liberty for "protection", but I simply don't trust the government that much. I will not advocate giving the government the power to decide who I will and will not associate with when I am committing no crime.

It is best to prevent crime, but if we have to give up liberty to do it, the cost is way too high.

Counter-terrorist actions at the airport don't ban people from doing things that are perfectly legal. They check to make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal or against airport/airline regulations.

Who says I would give up my liberty for protection? I barely trust the government to take out my trash, let alone taking care of gangs. But I think this is a step in the right direction, taking preventative measures.

As for the airport security: that's exactly my point. If they suspect that you are doing something illegal, they do their damndest to prevent that. Why should the same apply to other criminals?