PDA

View Full Version : Street Gangs


Smokin Joe
02-06-2004, 23:15
What are your guys feelings on Street Gangs? Should they be treated as Domestic Terrorist and persecuted such? Whats your solution to getting ride of Street Gangs?

Spartan
02-07-2004, 12:05
Originally posted by Smokin Joe
What are your guys feelings on Street Gangs? Should they be treated as Domestic Terrorist and persecuted such? Whats your solution to getting ride of Street Gangs?

Although they do terrorize locally, this is a local law enforcement problem. Until they attack national infrasctrucutre (power, industry, roads, etc....) or are detected working with foreign terrorists, they should be treated as punks with guns who commit crimes.

Although, as the Pentagon has stood up a new command, Northcom, it would be great, if feasible, that the Army created another SF Group focused on North America.

Spartan
02-07-2004, 12:25
US Northern Command (http://www.northcom.mil/)

The Reaper
02-07-2004, 13:37
Originally posted by Spartan

Although, as the Pentagon has stood up a new command, Northcom, it would be great, if feasible, that the Army created another SF Group focused on North America.

I fail to see the requirement or the point of it.

The creation of a new command does not validate the requirement for an already overtasked and undermanned resource.

TR

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 13:45
Me either. I don't see the need for the DHS either.

Street gangs are an LEO problem - Organized crime. Personally, I would like to the FBI out of the CT game and devoted solely to OG and CONUS stuff. I think their CE stuff should be done by somebody else. Its the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not the Federal Bureau of Operations.

Disband the DHS and make the DCI the DCI, but he has to have an intel background. FBI would fall under a reverse Posse C if I was King. And I think the USMS should play a bigger role, like take over the FBI's operational elements.

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 15:02
I agree it is a local LEO problem only.

Two-pronged approach:

1. Serious crimes should be met with severe and certain punishment. We could have a long discussion about why we don't have that now.

2. Much of the problem is caused by a social vacuum. Many of these kids don't have fathers around, so they have to look elsewhere for what fathers are supposed to provide. The welfare system and the deterioration of our culture have a lot to do with this situation, IMO.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 15:23
I didn't say "local" LEO. I said LEO.

1. We all know why we don't have punishment.

2. BS - my Dad was never around and I'm not a criminal, in the US.

He sold meat during the day and raised cattle and farmed at night.

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 15:27
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
2. BS - my Dad was never around and I'm not a criminal, in the US.

He sold meat during the day and raised cattle and farmed at night.

What do you mean by "around"? If only that he was working a lot, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about kids raised by poor single mothers who have been completely abandoned by the fathers. It's not impossible to raise a kid in that situation, but it's awfully tough.

Spartan
02-07-2004, 15:41
Well, perhaps not the creation of a 'new' group, but perhaps a tasking towards assignment of operating MTTs geared towards creating a capability for local law enforcement groups to task organize into a regional response team, when terrorism occurs on our soil.

Attacks will come in many forms in the future, either locally and to a lesser extent, into coordinated regional attacks. Gangs may or may not be part of it. For the most part, they are opportunists and could do so for financial gain. It's not like they care about the local populace.

While this may be a bit off-topic in terms of dealing with gangs, SF providing training on how law enforcement could militarily task organize for a strong regional response would be a beneficial. That is done partially with such things as incident command teams, however I don't know that LEOs have the mindset or organizational ability to setup and run operations against an organized enemy or one who attacked and was escaping the area.

Who would better teach these sorts of things to local law enforcement? Is it not necessary for them to have these skills? Do they have the ability to do these things already?

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 15:46
I mean my and my brother's contact with him was minimal. He was up before we were and still working when we went to bed. he was an unseen part of the household. He didn't discipline us, he didn't help with homework, he didn't play. He couldn't. he was working 20 hours a day.

My mother worked a full time job for as long as I can remember.

I'm not saying its the same thing as the father skying out, but I think the other is a cop out. My brother is a single parent and he is raising his daughter right.

A bigger problem I think is a complete and utter lack of respect for authority. We dealt with Moms all the time, and I can't remember her saying "Wait until I tell your father." She didn't need back up. if somebody elses mom saw us screwing up in public, we got an ear pulled or at least something said. We had our own rules to follow.

Kids now a days seem to think they are equal to adults. I've even heard people talk about a child's rights. Kids don't have rights like free speech. They have a right to shut up and do what they are told. The only rights they have are those like 3 hots and a cot, an education and not to be abused.

I can't even imagine me wearing a T Shirt to school, them saying it was against policy and suing the school. My old man came to my school ONCE, my senior year. I refused to wrestle because of something the teacher said. I didn't call the old man, the school did.

We see it on here all the time. They come in here thinking they have a right to be here. They have a right to say whatever they want. We've encouraged this behavior by "listening to them". By being open and trying to understand them". All that Spock shit. Whatever happened to the Mom look - that one that could stop a charging rhino in his tracks? You think my old man wanted to listen to my problems after a day of worrying about the weather, checking for brucellosis, fighting with customers, stealing from Peter to pay for fuel? Hell no! We didn't even stay in the same room as the adults, much less get involved in the conversation.

I still call my father sir and don't curse in front of my mother. And my father can't beat me anymore.

Manners, respect, manners.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 15:48
Originally posted by Spartan
Well, perhaps not the creation of a 'new' group, but perhaps a tasking towards assignment of operating MTTs geared towards creating a capability for local law enforcement groups to task organize into a regional response team, when terrorism occurs on our soil.

Attacks will come in many forms in the future, either locally and to a lesser extent, into coordinated regional attacks. Gangs may or may not be part of it. For the most part, they are opportunists and could do so for financial gain. It's not like they care about the local populace.

While this may be a bit off-topic in terms of dealing with gangs, SF providing training on how law enforcement could militarily task organize for a strong regional response would be a beneficial. That is done partially with such things as incident command teams, however I don't know that LEOs have the mindset or organizational ability to setup and run operations against an organized enemy or one who attacked and was escaping the area.

Who would better teach these sorts of things to local law enforcement? Is it not necessary for them to have these skills? Do they have the ability to do these things already?

I don't see this as an SF function. We got away from some core business a few years ago and IMO it didn't do us any good. Be careful what you wish for - they may put it in the task list.

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 15:52
Your upbringing is the opposite of what I'm talking about, NDD.

I think you know what I mean. I'm talking about parents who fail to discipline and raise their children properly. There is a ton of literature on how the welfare system and other cultural changes have affected this critical societal function. My point is that there are social reforms that could significantly improve the situation. There obviously are single parents who get it done right, but IMO those parents deserve medals -- it's a VERY difficult task as I'm sure you know.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 15:57
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Your upbringing is the opposite of what I'm talking about, NDD.

I think you know what I mean. I'm talking about parents who fail to discipline and raise their children properly. There is a ton of literature on how the welfare system and other cultural changes have affected this critical societal function. My point is that there are social reforms that could significantly improve the situation. There obviously are single parents who get it done right, but IMO those parents deserve medals -- it's a VERY difficult task as I'm sure you know.

What social reforms? Look at the personal behavior of the parents, single or otherwise, that have these problem children.

Why do they fail to discipline and raise their children properly?

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 16:01
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
What social reforms? Look at the personal behavior of the parents, single or otherwise, that have these problem children.

Why do they fail to discipline and raise their children properly?

This requires a long response, and I need to get back to work. I'll continue later.

Perhaps D9 will join in; I believe that he and I are of similar minds on these issues.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 16:05
I'll be waiting social reformer. Bring your back up if you want, just more ass for the feast. If I'm not here tonight, I deal with you tomorrow. There's a bunch of old SF guys in town. trouble is brewing.

I will forewarn you though, I will accept no arguements legislating child raising.

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 16:08
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I'll be waiting social reformer. Bring your back up if you want, just more ass for the feast. If I'm not here tonight, I deal with you tomorrow. There's a bunch of old SF guys in town. trouble is brewing.

I will forewarn you though, I will accept no arguements legislating child raising.

You're going to agree with everything I want to do. Whether you'll admit it or not. Hasta manana, amigo.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 16:10
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You're going to agree with everything I want to do. Whether you'll admit it or not. Hasta manana, amigo.

THAT is so unlikely as to be beyond the realm of consideration.

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 16:39
I really am working now, but I want to clarify something.

I am NOT saying that a poor single mother can't do a great job raising kids. By the same token, I am NOT saying that a wealthy nuclear family always will do a good job of raising kids. As I will explain when I have more time, it is just very hard for a poor single mother to do the job right. There are social reforms that would reduce poverty and result in an improved sense of personal responsibility among the population in general.

Someone told me once that you're never too poor to clean up your yard. I agree with that, and the last thing I want to do is offend anyone with a discussion of statistical evidence.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 16:43
You're not getting the last word.

Roguish Lawyer
02-07-2004, 17:32
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
You're not getting the last word.

No, just the decisive one. :D

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 17:40
Not likely. :D

CRad
02-07-2004, 17:43
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
As I will explain when I have more time, it is just very hard for a poor single mother to do the job right.

I'm not going to agree with this even though I've read books on it that say similar things and even wrote a paper on it that is used at Campbell University.

The reason I'm not going to agree is because Special Forces wives have been raising kids for by themselves for years and very few of them have much time or money. Add to that burden, they have to deal with a husband who comes back wanting to take control of the household for a short time then he leaves again. The mother could end up with a bunch of mouthy kids who say "you wouldn't do this if Dad was home." or "you aren't the real boss, dad is." She doesn't though. She deals with it and she does it with only internal support from close friends because of career concerns. God forbid LE got involved.

I've already heard "you wouldn't do this if Dad were home." routine. The "it's a free country" and the "It's against the law to hit me." crap. The last one got him a beating and a speech on what the law here in NC actually says and what a bad idea it is to EVER tell me I can't do something. Then I made him call his dad and tell him I'd done it.

NousDefionsDoc
02-07-2004, 17:47
GET HIM CRad!

CRad
02-07-2004, 18:03
Single mothers, that is to say never married women or divorced women get a bad rap. The quality of the family relationship is more a factor in juvenile crime than whether there are two parents or one. It's also more of a factor than income. Stable families especially in the early years 0 to 6 do more good than two parents or money. You can look it up RL.

It's my belief for all the nonsense about what goes tdy stays tdy (or maybe because it does actually stay instead of coming home) SF marriages are strong, stable, and happy ones. We don't run into a lot of the problems other military marriages encounter when rotation cycles heat up.

Smokin Joe
02-07-2004, 23:56
What do you all think needs to be done to erradicate Street Gangs? More L.E., more education, more big bro/big sis type programs, or slaming gang bangers with laws like the RICO statues?

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 00:00
Fix the problems in the homes first. I think a lot of kids join gangs to get that group dynamic they don't get at home.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 01:20
Originally posted by CRad
I'm not going to agree with this even though I've read books on it that say similar things and even wrote a paper on it that is used at Campbell University.

The reason I'm not going to agree is because Special Forces wives have been raising kids for by themselves for years and very few of them have much time or money. Add to that burden, they have to deal with a husband who comes back wanting to take control of the household for a short time then he leaves again. The mother could end up with a bunch of mouthy kids who say "you wouldn't do this if Dad was home." or "you aren't the real boss, dad is." She doesn't though. She deals with it and she does it with only internal support from close friends because of career concerns. God forbid LE got involved.

I've already heard "you wouldn't do this if Dad were home." routine. The "it's a free country" and the "It's against the law to hit me." crap. The last one got him a beating and a speech on what the law here in NC actually says and what a bad idea it is to EVER tell me I can't do something. Then I made him call his dad and tell him I'd done it.

Your example is completely irrelevant. These mothers have an income being generated by the SF soldier. This allows them to stay home if they want to, or at least makes things easier financially.

Do you have any kids?

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 01:22
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Fix the problems in the homes first. I think a lot of kids join gangs to get that group dynamic they don't get at home.

Well lookee here. I told you we'd be in agreement. :D

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 01:50
In the interest of efficiency, I'm going to post excerpts from an article which I think is generally on target despite its age.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/HL401.cfm

Crime, Poverty and the Family
by The Honorable William P. Barr
Heritage Lecture #401

July 29, 1992

[part of intro omitted]

I think the trend we are seeing in violent crime is driven basically by three factors. First, the crack epidemic that started in about 1986 has led to a high degree of violence. Second, we are seeing the results of some of the family policies of the 1960s and 1970s -- the breakdown of the family -- and we are starting to pay the price for that with a surge in juvenile crime and the emergence of gangs. And third, we are seeing the saturation of the criminal justice systems in the states and the states relapsing to revolving door justice as prisoners are serving less and less of their sentences and are being prematurely released. I think those are the main factors in this upward trend of violence.

Now, in public discourse about how to deal with this violence, we generally see two competing views. One is the traditional law enforcement approach, which says crime is caused by criminals and the way we deal with crime is to use aggressive enforcement policies and to deter or incapacitate criminals through incarceration. On the other hand, I think we see a lot said about what I call the social rehabilitation response to violent crime. That approach tends to see crime as caused by societal ills and seeks to deal with crime by remedying these ills through social programs. Proponents of this approach say that you can't really deal with violent crime by suppression, you have to attack it at its root causes.

Combined Approach. I think we need both approaches, properly understood, acting together. We do have to take aggressive steps today to deal with the criminals of today. But, we also have to take steps and we do need programs to prevent, as best we can, the youth of today from becoming the chronic offenders of tomorrow.

. . .

Well, today I want to make three points. First, I want to explain why I think a strong law enforcement approach has to be paramount. Second, I want to discuss what I think we in law enforcement can do to have an impact. And third, I want to spend a little time talking about social programs and the root causes approach to dealing with violent crime and what I think we have to do there.

[first two sections omitted]

And that brings me to my third and final point. As I said at the outset, I think strong law enforcement ultimately should be combined with economic and social and moral rehabilitation of our communities, particularly in our inner-city neighborhoods. How do you go about the task of revitalizing them? What are the root causes of crime and what do you have to do to address them? What kind of social programs should we be pursuing? Now there are some who say that what we need is another massive round of spending on social welfare programs. And I think that is a mistaken view. We have poured trillions of dollars into social welfare programs over the last 25 years. The root-cause strategy is not something new. The root-cause strategy is precisely what we have been pursuing for 25 years.

. . . I think that any fair-minded observer would have to say that the overall results of this 25-year war on poverty have been disappointing. . . .

Now frankly, I think the argument that poverty causes crime is too much overstated. I think poverty is probably a contributing factor toward crime. But standing alone, the correlation between poverty as a causal factor in crime is very weak. In 1950, for example, the poverty rate was about 32 percent; today, it is 13.5 percent. And yet in 1950 crime rates were much lower than they are today. And in the Great Depression, when about half of this nation's population lived below the poverty line, as today defined, crime was more lower than it is today. When you look at our cities on a grid basis, neighborhood by neighborhood, the fact is that some of our poorest neighborhoods have relatively low crime rates.

But even accepting poverty as a contributing factor to crime, the fact is that, despite our massive spending programs, hard-core poverty seems as stubborn as ever. The fact of the matter is, more progress was made on reducing poverty levels in the seven years preceding the Great Society than has been made since the Great Society. And most of the progress in reducing poverty levels was made in the years immediately following 1965 and during the early years of the Reagan revolution. Otherwise, results have been very disappointing. There seems to be a persistent class of about 10-15 million Americans for whom poverty and dependency is long term and even inter-generational. Our anti-poverty programs have made virtually no headway against this hard-core group.

But more significantly, the policies of the past 25 years have contributed directly to the breakdown of the family, particularly in the inner cities. Now, before the Los Angeles riots I said on the David Brinkley show that we were witnessing in inner-city crime the grim harvest of the Great Society. Senator Moynihan said that this was the most depraved statement he had ever heard from anybody. I stand by what I said.

The welfare policies we have been pursuing since 1965 contain perverse incentives that have contributed to the breakdown of the family by rewarding and promoting non-marriage and illegitimacy. The numbers are truly staggering. The illegitimacy rate started to escalate rapidly after 1965. In 1965, 7.7 percent of American children were born to unwed mothers. Today the rate is 27 percent. For black children it has climbed to 65 percent, and in many inner-city areas it is over 80 percent. And this has been compounded by the skyrocketing divorce rates in our society. The number of divorces per year has tripled since 1960.

Disintegration of the Family. This family breakdown is a social and a moral catastrophe and is at the root of so many of the problems that beset out nation. In my view, the root cause of both crime and poverty is precisely this unraveling of the family. I think the evidence is clear that children from single-parent homes use drugs more heavily and commit more crimes throughout their lives than children from two-parent homes. Studies show that most gang members come from single-parent homes. Some 70 percent of juvenile delinquents in state reform institutions lived in single-parent homes or with someone other than their natural parents. One study found that 75 percent of adolescent murderers came from single-parent homes. Recent research by June O'Neill, formerly of the Urban Institute, finds that a black child in a single-parent home is more than twice as likely to engage in criminal activities as a black child from a two-parent home. Moreover, when that child is in a neighborhood where there are many other single-parent families, the child becomes three times more likely to engage in criminal activity. A 1988 study published in the Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquencies found that the rates of violent crime in a community correlated directly with the proportion of single-parent households in the community, but not the poverty or racial composition apart from family structure. In other words, they found that neither poverty nor race were significantly correlated to crime when family structure is taken into account.

Moreover, the disintegration of the family is the basic cause of long-term poverty and dependency in America today. Almost 70 percent of single-parent families with children and 80 percent of never- married mothers receive some form of government assistance. The poverty rate for female-headed households with children is at 44.5 percent, compared to 7.8 percent for married couples with children. Single-parent families account for 65 percent of poor families with children, and over half of all poor families. Studies show that it is primarily this group among the poor who remain mired in poverty and dependency over the long term.

So, that is the track record of the policies that we have been pursuing for 25 years -- little headway against hard-core poverty and the contribution to the breakdown of the family, which in turn, spawns crime and further poverty. The idea that if we just increase our record spending levels by a few more tens of billions of dollars we will somehow achieve a breakthrough is, in my view, incredible.

. . .

Today many of the social experts who brought us the 1960s and 1970s, and are largely responsible for the fix we are in, are promoting a further set of half-baked solutions to our problems that, I think, send the wrong moral message and are equally counterproductive -- like handing out needles to addicts and condoms to the kids in high school, and even below high school level.

Sending the Right Message. Our social programs, I think, have to send the right message if we want to turn around behavior. Now law enforcement sends a clear message about right and wrong, about personal responsibility, and about what a just society expects of its citizens. Our social programs must reinforce that message.

[end omitted]

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 01:54
Here's another one:

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Testimony of
Michael Tanner
Director of Health and Welfare Studies
The Cato Institute
Before the:
Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Youth Violence

June 7, 1995

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Members of the Committee:

My name is Michael Tanner and I am the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee on an issue of extreme importance to the American people. There is no doubt that juvenile crime is a serious and continuing problem in this country. There are many factors contributing to the rise in juvenile violence and crime, from the glorification of violence in the media to the failure of the "war on drugs." But, today, I would like to focus on a factor that has received far less attention -- the relationship between the welfare state and crime.

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today."(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4) Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)

As Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted in her seminal article for The Atlantic Monthly:

The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime.(6)

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O'Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

The same results can be seen from welfare systems in other countries. For example, a recent study of the impact of Canada's social-welfare system on family structure concluded that "providing additional benefits to single parents encourages births of children to unwed women."(9)

Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits. It is also true that a wide array of other social factors has contributed to the growth in out-of-wedlock births. But, by removing the economic consequences of a out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out of wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible immediate consequences (the very real consequences of such behavior are often not immediately apparent), she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.

Proof of this can be found in a study by Professor Ellen Freeman of the University of Pennsylvania, who surveyed black, never-pregnant females age 17 or younger. Only 40% of those surveyed said that they thought becoming pregnant in the next year "would make their situation worse."(10) Likewise, a study by Professor Laurie Schwab Zabin for the Journal of Research on Adolescence found that: "in a sample of inner-city black teens presenting for pregnancy tests, we reported that more than 31 percent of those who elected to carry their pregnancy to term told us, before their pregnancy was diagnosed, that they believed a baby would present a problem..."(11) In other words, 69 percent either did not believe having a baby out-of-wedlock would present a problem or were unsure.

Until teenage girls, particularly those living in relative poverty, can be made to see real consequences from pregnancy, it will be impossible to gain control over the problem of out-of- wedlock births. By disguising those consequences, welfare makes it easier for these girls to make the decisions that will lead to unwed motherhood.

Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appallingly lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.(12)

I should also point out that, once the child is born, welfare also appears to discourage the mother from marrying in the future. Research by Robert Hutchins of Cornell University shows that a 10 percent increase in AFDC benefits leads to an eight percent decrease in the marriage rate of single mothers.(13)

As welfare contributes to the rise in out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, it concomitantly contributes to the associated increase in criminal activity.

Secondly, welfare leads to increased crime by contributing to the marginalization of young black men in society. There are certainly many factors contributing to the increasing alienation and marginalization of young black men, including racism, poverty, and the failure of our educational system. However, welfare contributes as well. The welfare culture tells the man he is not a necessary part of the family. They are in effect cuckolded by the state. Their role of father and breadwinner is supplanted by the welfare check.

The role of marriage and family as a civilizing influence on young men has long been discussed. Whether or not strict causation can be proven, it is certainly true that unwed fathers are more likely to use drugs and become involved in criminal behavior.(14) Indeed, single men are five times more likely to commit violent crimes than married men.(15)

Finally, in areas where there is a high concentration of welfare, there may be an almost total lack of male role models. This can lead to crime in two ways. First, as the Maryland NAACP puts it, "A child whose parents draw a welfare check without going to work does not understand that in this society at least one parent is expected to rise five days of each week to go to some type of job."(16)

Second, boys growing up in mother only families naturally seek male influences. Unfortunately, in many inner city neighborhoods, those male role models may not exist. As George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, has noted, the typical inner-city today is "almost a matriarchy. The women receive all the income, dominate the social-worker classes, and most of the schools." Thus, the boy in search of male guidance and companionship may end up in the company of gangs or other undesirable influences.(17)

Given all of the above, I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today. Exactly how welfare should be reformed is undoubtedly beyond the scope of this hearing. The Cato Institute's position, however, is well known. Our research indicates that the current federal welfare system cannot be reformed. Accordingly, we have suggested that federal funding of welfare should be ended and responsibility for charity should be shifted first to the states and eventually to the private sector.(18)

In conclusion, let me simple say that, whatever Congress eventually decides to do in the way of welfare reform, I hope that you will recognize the disastrous consequences of our current welfare system. The status quo is plainly and simply unacceptable. The relationship between our failed social welfare system and juvenile violence and crime is one more urgent reason for reform.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[footnotes omitted]

CRad
02-08-2004, 01:56
Children do best when raised by their natural parents as opposed to foster parents unless there is a lot strife and abuse in the home. There was a study done by Alan Stroufe & Susan Pierce over a 20 year period where they measured the amount of monitoring children recieved and the amount of dissension that was in the home specifically between the ages of 2 and 6 years.

What made that study so interesting is that many people think of teen or pre-teen years as the ones where you have to be careful or your kid will end up a delinquent. It turned out that there wasn't a big difference in incarceration rates based on monitoring during the pre-teen and teen years. Where the difference showed up was in family stability from during pre-school years.

You might figure yeah, yeah, one study big deal. Along comes this guy John C. Thomas who says a variety of factors contribute to juvenile crime including early childhood trauma and neurological trauma. He says that while they are factors a stable family is a contributing cause why not all children who have suffered such trauma become delinquents.

Another fellow, James Garbarino, says that by nine months most children have formed attachments to their primary care-giver; however, many juvenile offenders have had such disruptive lives that they were never given the chance to form such bonds even at that early age. A child who hasn't done the bonding thing then has trouble forming relationships, and a good relationship with ones parents can be an important part of respect, self-worth, and self-confidence during formative years. Incidently, those are also a few of the reasons kids give for joining gangs.

Respect, giving and getting, self confidence, sense of worth and belonging along with the discipline imposed by some gangs. I thought that discipline part was hilarious but then I'm an adult and came from a really close-knit family.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 01:56
I support welfare and other social programs because I believe that people who are down on their luck should have a safety net. However, the programs need to be reformed to address the issue discussed above IMO. There has been some recent progress in some states, although I candidly don't follow this stuff like I used to.

CRad
02-08-2004, 01:59
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Your example is completely irrelevant. These mothers have an income being generated by the SF soldier. This allows them to stay home if they want to, or at least makes things easier financially.

Do you have any kids?

Of course I have kids. Welfare mothers have an income. It's not as much as an E-6 makes but it's still an income. What's your point?

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 02:02
Originally posted by CRad
Of course I have kids. Welfare mothers have an income. It's not as much as an E-6 makes but it's still an income. What's your point?

My point is only that you and I are talking about two completely different things.

Interesting studies you discuss above. I think we are two ships passing in the night, though. :)

CRad
02-08-2004, 02:10
I think a two parent family is the ideal, but not a two parent family that is violent or disruptive with one of the parents moving in and out on a regular basis. Stabilty is the key to lowering juvenile crime rates. It is also the key to lowering out of wedlock birth rates.

Not all abused children end up in prison but one study suggested that all violent crimnals in in prison were victims of abuse. Not a pleasent thought.

CRad
02-08-2004, 02:13
By the way, I hated that Cato Inst. article. It sounded racist and snobbish. What alternative do they suggest to unwed mothers having state assistance? Selling apples on the streets? I'll bet those people never missed a meal in their pampered lives.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 12:15
Originally posted by CRad
By the way, I hated that Cato Inst. article. It sounded racist and snobbish. What alternative do they suggest to unwed mothers having state assistance? Selling apples on the streets? I'll bet those people never missed a meal in their pampered lives.

Fair point on the tone. I just wanted to get some data in here quickly, and the article had a lot.

If you tax something, you will get less of it. If you subsidize it, you will get more. Right now, we are subsidizing behavior that has (statistically) negative consequences. The idea is to increase the costs of engaging in that behavior (teen pregnancies, out-of-wedlock births, etc.) by reducing or eliminating the existing subsidies.

There would be significant human costs to doing this, but if you are a utilitarian it's the way to go. You'd need to phase it in and you'd need private charities to pick up the slack. George W. is all over the charity issue already, although I don't know whether he's gotten anything passed. Much of this stuff needs to be done at the state level.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 12:47
NND:

You still recovering? Let us know how much time you'll need. LOL

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 13:20
No, I'm good, I was home by 23:30. I'm just ignoring you because you used the old lawyer trick of posting reams of paper to confuse the argument.:D

I am not in favor of welfare reform, I am in favor of welfare abolishment for the healthy. I would put them all in mandatory lock down on closed military bases. They would attend mandatory technical or other training to provide them with a skill. They would receive free day care and schooling for their children. They would receive free food, medical and dental care. Attend the religious service of their choice, but attend they must. Everyone has a gray workshirt and prison jeans for uniforms. And they would be required to work in order to produce products that would pay for it all. No welfare, no unemployment. They would be in the program for a maximum of 6 months, then they graduate. Out. Job placement for the graduates with business and tax incentives to companies that hire them.

Every newly graduated doctor, dentist, lawyer, engineer, teacher etc. would have to do one year of community service to support this program. Their college loans would then be forgiven.

Mothers in the progam have to take child raising classes. Ethics and morality taught daily to all participants.

The government should buy every roll of toilet paper, lightbulb and broom from my program.

Tax structure needs to be thrown out. Businesses that take their employment overseas have to be made to pay a penalty so stiff they won't do it. Businesses that stay in the US and hire US workers should get every advantage possible.

Institute a draft, not for the military, but for civil service. Putting out wildfires, cleaning up the highways, disaster clean up, etc.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 13:26
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Attend the religious service of their choice, but attend they must.

You are from Texas, aren't you? LOL

OK, so we are in agreement at least conceptually (not sure I'd do exactly what you're proposing, and you're now raising other issues too, but we're in the same ballpark I think).

Based on the quote above, though, your name is now Ayatollah NousDefionsDoc. :D I'd rebel against the government if it sought to compel me to attend religious services. I think we need more religion in the country, but I'm violently against forcing it on people. This is why I own firearms.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 13:34
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
You are from Texas, aren't you? LOL

OK, so we are in agreement at least conceptually (not sure I'd do exactly what you're proposing, and you're now raising other issues too, but we're in the same ballpark I think).

Based on the quote above, though, your name is now Ayatollah NousDefionsDoc. :D I'd rebel against the government if it sought to compel me to attend religious services. I think we need more religion in the country, but I'm violently against forcing it on people. This is why I own firearms.

Loss of religion is to me, one of the major problems today. I didn't say they had to actively participate or go to any particular religion. In the Army, we used to have to go during BT, most of us used the time to sleep. These people don't have a problem with being religious when they need a religion to get more money from the government. Let POTUS come out and say "Ok, if you're not Southern Baptist, you get X per month and if you are, you get X+Y." Watch and see the converts. But if you're going to shoot me over it, we can change that to ethics and philosophy. But they need some kind of right and wrong class.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 13:34
On further reflection, I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing and whether it really would address the problem. How would a single mother on welfare with five kids be treated in your program?

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 13:37
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Loss of religion is to me, one of the major problems today. I didn't say they had to actively participate or go to any particular religion. In the Army, we used to have to go during BT, most of us used the time to sleep. These people don't have a problem with being religious when they need a religion to get more money from the government. Let POTUS come out and say "Ok, if you're not Southern Baptist, you get X per month and if you are, you get X+Y." Watch and see the converts. But if you're going to shoot me over it, we can change that to ethics and philosophy. But they need some kind of right and wrong class.

I agree with you. The decline of religion in this country has a lot to do with our social problems. I want there to be more religious people, but I don't know how to make that happen without coercing them. There certainly are some things you could do, but I'm not sure they'd really get the job done. I also believe very strongly that people have the right to be atheists if they want.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 13:43
I also believe they have a right to be atheists if they want. One of the things I think we can do is allow it back in the schools in the non-denominational way it was done when I was a kid. If you don't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or pray, just stand there quietly, like I do when the play the national anthems of the countries or that stuff in mass that everybody answers back down here. I refuse to sing the national anthem or say any kind of pledge of allegiance to another countries flag or soverignty because I am an American fighting man and I took the only oath I will ever take years ago. So I just stand there and keep my mouth shut.

Another thing is all these kids in school need to be wearing uniforms. You'd be surprised how much little things like that can help. In schools here, there aren't really any class distinctions because the rich kids wear the same unifroms as the porr kids. Kind of lets them now they're all human beings. No fights over clothes either.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 13:45
See, I knew we'd agree because you forgot to block MY access to your OODA Loop. LOL

CRad
02-08-2004, 14:10
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I agree with you. The decline of religion in this country has a lot to do with our social problems. I want there to be more religious people, but I don't know how to make that happen without coercing them. There certainly are some things you could do, but I'm not sure they'd really get the job done. I also believe very strongly that people have the right to be atheists if they want.

Is it a decline in religion or a decline in a public philosophy?

The ideas of what men should be like becomes efficacious in the existential world because they are imposed by the family, the school, and the community, they cause men to "acquire the kind of character which makes them want to act in the way they have to act as members of the society...They learn to desire what, objectively, it is necessary for them to do...

Within the Western World there is a plurality of incompatible faiths; there is also a multitude of secularized and agnostic people. Since there is little prospect of agreement, and such certainty of dissension, on the content of public philosophy, it seems expedient not to raise the issue by talking about it. It is easier to follow the rule that each person's beliefs are private and only overt conduct is a public matter.

Men who established freedom of speech and freedom of religion would have said the community could not do without a public philosophy...of the doctrine of natural law, which held that there was a law "above the ruler and the sovereign people...above the whole community of mortals."

If what you do in the privacy of your own home is going to impact on the nation at large then it is no longer in the privacy of your own home. I think bearing children falls under that heading.

Smokin Joe
02-08-2004, 20:47
I agree with alot of what you all are saying BUT, do you really think that everything that has been said relates to stopping gangs or stopping poverty?

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 20:53
Originally posted by Smokin Joe
I agree with alot of what you all are saying BUT, do you really think that everything that has been said relates to stopping gangs or stopping poverty?

Of course not, what's your point? LOL - I just looked at your profile, no wonder you were watching this thread. I'd love to hear your input on this.

Smokin Joe
02-08-2004, 22:06
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Of course not, what's your point? LOL - I just looked at your profile, no wonder you were watching this thread. I'd love to hear your input on this.

My point of view is that street gangs are just for this country as illegal drugs if not worse.

We have more people in street gangs (collectively) than we do in Law Enforcement, or the Military. Kind of scary if you ask me. Granted they are not as organized as either the Military or Law Enforcement BUT they have the numbers. The Surrenos alone have over 25,000 active members.

The reason why I asked the original question: If street gangs should be considered Domestic Terrorists or not? Is because I think they are Domestic Terrorists.

The reasons why I think that are Domestic Terrorists is b/c: they run the drugs, shoot up the neighborhoods, break in to our houses, and generally cause the majority of our crime in society today. They terrorize society in their daily doings. Granted they haven't caused anything remotely close to 9/11. But street gangs kill every day in every major city or prison, and collectively that adds up every year to about the equivelant of a 9/11. Its not as catostrophic as 9/11 but its a slower more cumulative approach.

Now the reason I said city or prison, is b/c most of the gang hits are done in prison. Granted that is not a big deal seeing how the violence is in a prison and its inmate on inmate. However it is still a murder (even if it is an inmate it is still someone's kid).

I think that a bonefide street gang member needs to be persecuted just like we are persecuting A-Q. We should be able to hunt them down and snatch them from there houses in the middle of the night. I also believe that we should be able to do it with as much (or as little) cause as we go after terrorists. I.E. lets say we don't have any concrete evidence against an A-Q member, but we know that f*cker helped orcherstrate 9/11 how do we know b/c our intel tells us so. Now we go to his house and hunt him down. Has he been found guilty in a court of law? Nope, we don't need to he is a terrorists and according to the President terrorists will be brought to justice. Well why doesn't that go for joe-shit-bag the local street gang banger? Let's say I know joe-shit-bag killed his ex girl jill-shit-bag for sleeping with jack-shit-bag (who is in another gang). But I don't have enough evidence to get a warrant on joe-shit-bag. Lets say I know that joe-shit-bag has been a busy little bee, and that he has orcherstated a drive by on jack-shit-bags gang house, but during the drive by a neighborhood kid gets killed in the cross fire. But again I don't have enough evidence to get a warrant on joe-shit-bag, and we have exhausted all our resources trying to build a case against joe-shit-bag but we still have nothing b/c joe-shit-bag is a smart criminal. Now we all know that sooner or later joe-shit-bag is going to screw up and get caught doing something, but he is never going to be held accountable for these murders.

We should be able to go after these guys just as aggresively as we go after international terrorists. The gang bangers get a free ride to GITMO, for an indefient stay.


I probably should have started this thread in the Terrorists section. My bad admins.

Roguish Lawyer
02-08-2004, 22:18
SJ:

I support many reforms that would make it easier for you to get warrants, etc. I don't like Miranda, for example. But I think what you are proposing goes too far.

NousDefionsDoc
02-08-2004, 22:18
No, its good here. More traffic. The problem with this as I see it is they are citizens and have constitutional rights they have not forfeited by their actions. Committing a crime does not mean you forfeit your rights. The members of AQ are not citizens and they have committed an act of war, not a crime IMO.

I agree the gang bangers are a scourge and should be dealt with. We are trying the terrorists that are citizens the same general way we do other criminals. Other than disclosure is probably not the same due to national security concerns.

One thing I think would definitely help is to get liberal judges that put the criminal's rights before the victim's off the bench. We had that discussion on another board, but we can reopen it here tomorrow.

The liberal attitude of judges is, IMO in no small part due to the perceived need to protect abortion and some other pet decisions.

We need hard judges that give hard time and are willing to issue warrants.

Thanks for your input, we can pick it up tomorrow. I'm too tired for Crips and Bloods tonight and we need the lawyers for this.

Smokin Joe
02-08-2004, 22:26
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
SJ:

I support many reforms that would make it easier for you to get warrants, etc. I don't like Miranda, for example. But I think what you are proposing goes too far.

Actually Roguish Lawyer I agree with you what I purposed does go to far. However how should we as a society handle them. You know and I know we can't "force a confession" out of someone, and in many cases that is what it would take to get the necessary evidence to convict someone.

The only thing I can come up with is aggravated charges/sentences for gang members. I.E. if you or I pee in public (depending on the state) its a Misdemeanor. If a gang banger does it its a Felony.

I'm also agree with NDD....time for bed, we can solve societies problems tomorrow:)

CRad
02-08-2004, 22:27
He might be onto something. NDD posted this as a definition of terrorism - The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.


My terrorism book defines it as - a purposeful human activity primarily directed toward the creation of a general climate of fear designed to influence, in ways desired by the protagonists, other human beings, and through them some course of events. Terrorism therefore is goal-directed violence. A terrorists enjoy sultimate success when they can instill in to the target audience a sense of powerlessness and helplessness.

I think that covers street gangs rather neatly.

Smokin Joe
02-09-2004, 12:04
Originally posted by CRad
He might be onto something. NDD posted this as a definition of terrorism - The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.


My terrorism book defines it as - a purposeful human activity primarily directed toward the creation of a general climate of fear designed to influence, in ways desired by the protagonists, other human beings, and through them some course of events. Terrorism therefore is goal-directed violence. A terrorists enjoy sultimate success when they can instill in to the target audience a sense of powerlessness and helplessness.

I think that covers street gangs rather neatly.

CRad,

You hit the nail on the head. That is my exact point, they are arguably the same as international terrorist, the only exception is that most of them are U.S. citizens.

Roguish Lawyer
02-09-2004, 13:35
I don't agree at all, although I'm no expert. Street gangs are just criminals, sometimes very well organized criminals, but they're not terrorists in the traditional sense. When they kill innocents, it's generally inadvertent or part of a power struggle of some sort; it's not calculated to achieve broader political objectives.

Surgicalcric
02-09-2004, 14:30
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I don't agree at all, although I'm no expert. Street gangs are just criminals, sometimes very well organized criminals, but they're not terrorists in the traditional sense. When they kill innocents, it's generally inadvertent or part of a power struggle of some sort; it's not calculated to achieve broader political objectives.

Finally something RL and I agree on.


Originally posted by Smokin Joe
The only thing I can come up with is aggravated charges/sentences for gang members. I.E. if you or I pee in public (depending on the state) its a Misdemeanor. If a gang banger does it its a Felony.

Now this is just ridiculous. I would pray you are just joking here. The crime committed is just that. Regardless of whether the person is a "gang-banger" or not does not in itself give the courts or a LEO justification to change the level of crime.

The problem as I see it here in SC, Greenville specifically, is the judges and the prison system itself. The judges are too soft on damn near every violent crime and once in the prison system they are released too soon due in no small part to overcrowding. There is no deterrent. The youth of today are not afraid of prison. And the gangs are just as big in the prison system as out, of which the Nation of Islam is the largest. I know its a religion...blah, blah, blah.

The 'fear of God' needs to be put back into their lives.

Airbornelawyer
02-09-2004, 14:45
CRad, your terorism book's definition is so elastic and overgeneralized as to be meaningless. Virtually all warfare and all crime becomes terrorism by that definition. War, after all, certainly is "goal-directed violence." There may be some doctrinaire pacifist out there who believes that all are the same ("one man's terrorist is another man's 18B is another man's Crip"), but as a guide for policy in the non-tinfoil hat world, NDD's definition is far more apt.

Dave

Roguish Lawyer
02-09-2004, 15:31
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Finally something RL and I agree on.

The horror!

Oh come on. Not true. Everyone agrees with me eventually. :p

Smokin Joe
02-09-2004, 20:54
Okay Okay I get it you guys aren't going to buy in to my theory that street gangs are really domestic terrorists.

Surgicalcric,
I was actually grasping at straws for a final stance, but you pulled the carpet out from under me...:D

Seriously though I have no love for gang bangers. I hope that is apparent. I can't stand the fact that gangs run some neighborhoods in this country, and that the police are afarid to enter those neighborhoods after dark (unless there are 25 officers responding). I think California has it some-what-right with the 3 strikes law, however instead of any 3 felony covictions I think it should be 3 violent crime convictions, and your out for life. Additionally I think being in a gang should count against you on any offense sentence.

CRad
02-09-2004, 21:48
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
CRad, your terorism book's definition is so elastic and overgeneralized as to be meaningless.
Dave

you think so? I'm surprised to hear that. Stephan Sloan wrote that definition in beating International Terrorism published by the Air University Press at Maxwell AFB. It was issued to the other half by the US Army at one of the courses he took on LIC.

NousDefionsDoc
02-09-2004, 21:54
I'm so proud! I remember the first discussions we had about unconventional warfare. CRad cheated:D and everybody else posted "Just glad to be here!" Except for the SF guys and Jimbo. LOL Now I have to study to keep up.

Welcome to the club Smokin' Joe, good gouge.

CRad
02-09-2004, 21:56
Originally posted by Smokin Joe
Okay Okay I get it you guys aren't going to buy in to my theory that street gangs are really domestic terrorists.



To be honest, I don't know if I'd actually classify them as terrorist even with the definition from Dr. Sloan. However, I can see why a police officer would be totally frustrated over the resrictions placed on him when it comes to dealing with them. The problem with classifying them as anything other than criminals takes away the ability of the police to treat them as individuals, and I'm sure you know from your own dealings with them that there are varying degrees of bad guys.

NousDefionsDoc
02-09-2004, 21:58
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
CRad, your terorism book's definition is so elastic and overgeneralized as to be meaningless.

Dave

Most of the definitions are.


Dave


LOL

CRad
02-09-2004, 22:01
I did not cheat. The other half refused to help me, told me NOT go around him by calling his friends (dammit) and said I was smart enough on my hook. I also said I had to dig through more than three feet of FMs to find an answer. If there are that many FMs on one shelf what do you think are on the other shelves?

I started readin up on this stuff before we ever got married so I could follow what he was talking about without getting lost and changing the subject to girlie stuff.

NousDefionsDoc
02-09-2004, 22:05
Originally posted by CRad
I did not cheat. The other half refused to help me, told me NOT go around him by calling his friends (dammit) and said I was smart enough on my hook. I also said I had to dig through more than three feet of FMs to find an answer. If there are that many FMs on one shelf what do you think are on the other shelves?

I started readin up on this stuff before we ever got married so I could follow what he was talking about without getting lost and changing the subject to girlie stuff.

LOL - I CAUGHT you letting him post with your user name twice! Don't even try it.

Of course the old motto is "If you ain't..."

LOL

Surgicalcric
02-09-2004, 22:14
Originally posted by Smokin Joe
Surgicalcric,
I was actually grasping at straws for a final stance, but you pulled the carpet out from under me...:D

Not trying to draw you out. But, if you are going to make bold statements as such you are gonna to have your feet held to the fire about them.

Seriously though I have no love for gang bangers. I hope that is apparent. I can't stand the fact that gangs run some neighborhoods in this country, and that the police are afarid to enter those neighborhoods after dark (unless there are 25 officers responding). I think California has it some-what-right with the 3 strikes law, however instead of any 3 felony covictions I think it should be 3 violent crime convictions, and your out for life. Additionally I think being in a gang should count against you on any offense sentence.

I understand your lack of love for the gangs. I do not much like them myself. I have been in the middle of more gang related incidents than I care to recount at the moment while at either the FD or EMS. (2) III-A's down and working on my 3rd.

I, however think Kalifornia should rethink the 3 strikes rule and cut that down to 2 strikes and you are 'in' for life, not out. This is regardless of gang relationship.

Glad to have you here.

JD

Surgicalcric
02-09-2004, 22:16
...cheatin' you aint tryin' .

NousDefionsDoc
02-09-2004, 22:17
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
...cheatin' you aint tryin'.

LOL - Reaper's gonna kick yer ass. Do you know the 2nd half?

HQ6
02-09-2004, 22:19
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
The judges are too soft on damn near every violent crime and once in the prison system they are released too soon due in no small part to overcrowding. There is no deterrent. The youth of today are not afraid of prison. And the gangs are just as big in the prison system as out, of which the Nation of Islam is the largest. I know its a religion...blah, blah, blah.
The 'fear of God' needs to be put back into their lives.

Amen! There is no real deterrent for crime. Heck the death penalty really isn't that much of a deterrent anymore with 10-25 years of appeals while you are isolated from the general population. Life in Prison is no longer a life long sentence and most convictions I have heard have been for concurrent sentences when there are multiple convictions.

Smokin' Joe I'll give you that California does at least have it right in the conviction process. Unfortunately, they lack the resources to back that up with the incarceration for the full term of "life." Last I heard that was 25 years in the California penal system, which translates into 12 years real time.

One thing that just floored me today about my short term home state... We had a man kill a 5 year-old girl and severely (most likely permanently) brain damage her 10 year-old brother by beating them with a lug wrench, and he, according to what I am told, will not be a candidate for the death penalty. This just happened this weekend. Consequently, no one really knows for what the prosecutor will ask. However, in California compounded felony (ex: an killing during a robbery) constituted a capital case. Roguish Lawyer correct me if I am wrong because it has been a few years since I lived in LA.

All to say, I have no idea what the real answer is for street gangs. We didn't get to where we are over night, and we are not going to be able to fix this over night either. I think NDD and Roughish Lawyer were on the right (all be it somewhat parallel) track with the issue of family and the need for reform of the welfare system. Smokin Joe and Surgicalcric have a good point with real time prison terms combined with the resources to enforce them. I think it will take a combination of strategies. One of which will be to limit the damn appeals process. Yes this is a little off topic, but since I am up here on my soap box anyway, here is an example:

Gang Banger X shoots Gang Banger Y as part of a pre planned scheme to take over Gang Banger Y's drug trade. Smokin Joe witnesses the whole thing, planning to execution, as undercover Gang Banger Copman. Gang Banger X goes to trial for Murder 1, is convicted, and sentenced to death. Gang Banger X gets ONE shot at appeals in case he really did have the crappiest attorney known to man. Period. End of story.

Thump
Thump

HQ6
02-09-2004, 22:23
Originally posted by CRad
I started readin up on this stuff before we ever got married so I could follow what he was talking about without getting lost and changing the subject to girlie stuff.

You have just officially become my Yoda!

CRad
02-09-2004, 22:29
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - I CAUGHT you letting him post with your user name twice! Don't even try it.

Of course the old motto is "If you ain't..."

LOL

He's sent a reply to one thread here already. ROFL! It's smart man who knows when to help the wife.

Surgicalcric
02-09-2004, 22:49
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
LOL - Reaper's gonna kick yer ass. Do you know the 2nd half?

If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin' - and if you get caught, you ain't tryin' hard 'nuff.

:p

Roguish Lawyer
02-10-2004, 09:06
HQ6:

This is not my area of expertise -- I don't practice criminal law.

Smokin Joe
02-10-2004, 11:31
Orignally posted by Surgicalcric
Not trying to draw you out. But, if you are going to make bold statements as such you are gonna to have your feet held to the fire about them.

Glad to have you here.

LOL....thanks


Orignailly posted by NousDefionsDoc
Welcome to the club Smokin' Joe, good gouge.

Thanks.......I think :D

HQ6,

The way AZ criminal law goes, there are 2 different types of "life sentence". First is natural life which means you are never getting out. The second is a life sentence which is 25 to natural life based on your parole board. Meaning you have to serve at least 25 years in prison but if you are the model inmate you can get out after 25 years. If you are a dirt bag inmate you MAY end up spending the rest of your life in prison. That is rarely enforced b/c after a certain point in the inmates life when they are feable and can barely get out of bed in the morning the prisons don't want to spend the money to keep them alive. So miracalously they get released on parole.

And then of course there is the death sentence with the 9th circus oops I mean circuit says a judge can't hand down any more so a jury has to give it to them.

GackMan
02-10-2004, 13:17
can I come to this party late?

I'm going to have to say no, street gangs are not terrorist groups. As appealing as it sounds rounding up every dude with baggy pants and a tattoo and tossing them in a cage for eternity I don't think it would fly with the constitution.

Although some gangs may cause terror as a by product of their illegal activities, they are not causing terror as a goal and they have no ideological goals other than profit. e.g. A gang does a drive by shooting to expand and protect client base and market share but hits an innocent child. this is in the news, people are afraid to go out... basically it causes 'terror' (whatever that is) but they are not terrorists. Seuranos, nortenos, et al are not trying to overthrow any governments unless it is in support of the furtherance of their drug trade across the border. Quite the contrary, messing with the US economy would destroy their customer base for their products and be detrimental to their business in the long run.

They are org crime and should be treated as such. Classification and tracking as org crime members, additional sentencing, federal prosecution for activates that are organized crime. But in reality, they are no different than the Mafia... they are just not as smart.

Now, on the other hand. I think that if you are found on the battlefield engaged in combat against Americans and you went there with the intent and purpose of fighting them, then you have forfeited your citizenship and you can be treated as an enemy combatant.. but I'll have to wait to be AG before I can change that.

Smokin Joe
01-28-2005, 14:50
I thought this was interesting:

01/24/2005

Gangs Viewed as Domestic Terrorists by Calif. Police Chief

Ceres Police Chief Says Shootings Support Worry Over Rising Militancy
By Daryl Farnsworth and Patrick Giblin, Modesto Bee (California)

CERES, Calif. - Gangs aren't just criminal organizations anymore. They are domestic terrorists.

That's the evolving view of Ceres Police Chief Art de Werk, who was forced to endure one officer being shot to death two weeks ago and another critically wounded.


The man who ambushed them, 19-year-old Andres Raya, was identified by police investigators as a Norteño gang member. He also was a U.S. Marine visiting his south Modesto home while on weekend leave from Camp Pendleton in Southern California.

"There are gang members out there like Raya who are home-grown terrorists and need to be treated with the same caution and concern," de Werk said Sunday. "You will hear me use that word (terrorist) more often in the future as we deal with this."

For the past year, police departments around the state have been reporting rumors that gangs were planning to become more militant and more likely to shoot police officers, de Werk said.

"That's backed up by recent events as well as the graffiti that appeared near the shooting scene encouraging the shooting," de Werk said. "More recently in southwest Modesto, there's been a lot of prolific 'kill the cops' graffiti that's appearing."

Besides the Jan. 9 killing of Sgt. Howard Stevenson, 39, and wounding of officer Sam Ryno, 49, two Tulare police officers were shot the morning of Jan. 17 during a traffic stop. Both officers are in serious condition.

The wounded officers were a female training officer and a male officer who had just transferred from another law enforcement agency. Two brothers were arrested in connection with the shootings.

One officer was shot as she walked toward a car stopped for a traffic violation, in which the suspects are believed to have been riding. When the other officer tried to help, he was shot.

The suspects - two brothers from Earlimart - were found hiding in oleander bushes that divide Highway 99, police said.

On Jan. 10, Turlock Police Department officials reported that someone shot at one of their officers. The gunman was hiding in an alley and fled after firing the shots. The officer returned fire but no one was hit, police reported.

Since the Ceres shootings, many residents have contacted de Werk to offer support for the police, as well as express concern about gangs.

"I have been enormously uplifted by the broad-based support of the community," de Werk said. "They see that gangs and what they are comprised of aren't just young kids getting together to have fun. There's more to it than that."

Teaming up for crackdown

Sunday night, 60 officers from the Modesto Police Department's Gang Task Force, the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department Special Investigative Unit, the California Department of Corrections and the Ceres Police Department swept neighborhoods searching for wanted gang members in Ceres, said Modesto police Sgt. Ed Steele.

"After the shooting in Ceres, we talked and realized that Ceres did not have the resources to deal with the gang problem," Steele said. "This is just one of many planned sweeps and we may be going into other areas in the county as well."

By 7 p.m. Sunday, officers had arrested 14 people on charges ranging from outstanding warrants to possession of drugs and stolen vehicles. They also handed out dozens of tickets for other offenses, Steele said. The sweep was continuing late Sunday.

Since the shooting, the members of the Ceres Police Department have been coping with the loss of a fellow officer and concern for another colleague, de Werk said, while still patrolling the streets every day, protecting the city.

Ryno remains hospitalized, but his condition has improved from critical to serious but stable, Ceres police Sgt. Michael Borges said Saturday.

"He's doing better, but he's still not out of the woods," Borges said. "The doctors are still watching for infections and blood clots, and other problems."

Borges said Stevenson is deeply missed by everyone with whom he worked. "He (Stevenson) was a fixture around here for 20 years," Borges said.

Despite the gloom and sadness for their fallen and injured colleagues, it was business as usual at the station for officers and other employees Saturday afternoon.

Stevenson's death is a constant reminder to all law enforcement officers and civilians of the inherent danger of being a police officer.

Borges said the atmosphere at the Ceres Police Department is now one of "apprehension and uncertainty about what is going on with gang bangers." He also cited the anti-police graffiti and the rise of violence against police officers by gang members.

"At this point, we're trying to reorganize and regroup," Borges said.

Smokin Joe
01-28-2005, 14:51
Oops Double tap

lrd
02-06-2005, 03:45
The rise of the Muslim Boys
By David Cohen, Evening Standard
3 February 2005

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16372042?source=Evening%20Standard

Winston's casual depiction of a lifestyle of crime tightly bound up with religious observance would normally be regarded as paradoxical, but in his case it is what defines him. For Winston is a member of the Muslim Boys, a gang, the black community says, unlike any that has operated before in south London.

Jack Moroney (RIP)
02-06-2005, 06:03
When I was a wee lad, back when they only had black and white TV and the most dangerous weapon of choice on the street was a switchblace, we had street gangs. The way we dealt with them was to beat the crap out of them. Normally one of us would take on the local bad ass who proclaimed himself the leader and that would resolve the problem. Then things sort of progressed to rumbles where it would be groups against groups and the weapons became more exotic-tire irons, chains, clubs. What always struck me was that the "gangs" where self-disenfranchised kids that sort of got together, hated school and school organizations (sports, clubs, etc). This was not a poor community or group of communities as we regionalized schools. It sort of boiled down to those that hated authority, had lack of self-respect, little self-esteem. Some had lousey family life, some were from single parents, some had big bucks, some had no other problems other than those of bad choices but yet came from a solid family where the other siblings were "normal". Now I have no solution to this situation, I deplore the social programs/welfare approaches where everyone else steps in to solve problems like there was a magic button for everyone's poor choices and bad luck, but for the most part those with whom I have been associated over the years that got the snot knocked out of them by their parents when they needed to never gravitated into the gangs. Now I'm not saying that they never got into trouble or walked a fine line, but gangs-no. So, from my limited view point, part of the problem stems from family structure and discipline in the home. The other part of the equation is that this country is becoming more and more like tribes. While I do not ever want to give hollywood any credit for anything, that was the whole deal in West Side Story and was closer to the truth as to gang formation than anything else. We have to get away from this crap about the formation of little ethnic centers in the cities and country side that form the loyalties to their home country and get back to being the United States and not a haven for displaced persons who fled their country because they did not have the balls to stay at home and fight for their own freedom and rights. When folks identify with their own culture and bring their "inbred hatred and god-given truths" here with the sole purpose of living in freedom so that they can pursue their single minded view of the world from which they came rather than willing be assimilated into this country we are always going to produce gangs loyal to their own values and not those of the US. So what's the solution, I am not a sociolgist and I don't know, but I will be damned before I let some street punk take away my rights to live a free and safe life.

Jack Moroney

brewmonkey
02-06-2005, 18:42
13 year old gang member shot by police (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20050206/ap_on_re_us/teen_shooting)