Banning Gangs

yes this old chestnut...

Good of Bad idea?



Me - stupid idea, you can't ban gangs effectively and it infringes on our freedoms

Discuss

I've still never really understood exactly what it is they want to ban?

how do you ban a gang?

restraining orders against each other?

ground them and stop them hanging out with each other?

A simple ban on gangs would be fairly ludicrous.

If you look at what the proposed law actually requires, I don't think it infringes on rights too much.
The gang must be proven to be involved in organised crime. I think the main difference between the current law and the proposed law is that once police have done the groundwork to convict some of the gang, they can essentially disband the rest of the gang.

Has it be tried anywhere else in the world?

IMO, we'd be better off pouring significant resources into policing troubled areas. As I understand it, there are particular areas which are essentially run by gangs, with residents living in fear. If we pour enough resources into those areas, we will go a long way to dividing and conquering.

Banning Gang patches from specific area i.e shopping malls/bars/clubs/schools etc...or outright banning gangs in general?

I'm happy for them to be banned. If a gang can be characterised by violence, crime, drugs etc - then what 'right' do they have to that?

Typically, I am very big on civil liberties/freedoms; but there has got to be some balance. Perhaps gangs should be registered, and treated as a 'legal person' in much the same way that a corporation is. Then if any member of the gang commits a gang-related crime (ie territorial violence, or drug-trafficking using gang resources) - then the GANG can be civilly sued and/or prosecuted. Then after x amount of convictions against the gang, it could be officially suspended and people are no longer allowed to be part of that gang (wear their patches or whatever).

And sure, they could just go start a new gang, but identity is most crucial part of any gang, so forcing them to start a new one would still have a massive impact.

gang ban is very close to gang bang

I think it's actually a misnomer from the media. I don't think it amounts to a ban as such. I could be very wrong though, as I'm only basing it on limited reports.

What about the biggest gang of them all?

Members of this gang have been convicted of gang rape extortion,and regulary use intimadation and stand over tactics on members of the public minding thier own buiseness.....

Thats's right the NZ police force.

I honestly don't think they can or want to ban anything, but some nice touchy feely headlines are always good in election year (for all parties)

Yes but define the operational meaning of this?
The Aussie rule means that cops can nominate a group they believe is involved in criminal purposes and then restrict an individuals rights to contact others, freedom of movement etc.
That's a really big step in my mind - and how do you define who is part of the gang?

If the crime-focussed senior members of a gang are told they can't be part of that gang anymore then they're just going to stop committing crime? Doubt it.

Yep... identity and numbers.

Once you start splintering them, their power will quickly diminish.
It would be important to separate them in prison as well. Separate prisons/blocks, etc.

Such a grey area though eh, they can just say they are a chess club, and this is their uniform.

Love to see a test case go to court.

What makes a gang patch a "gang" patch.

heh, i should of read whole thread

It's incredibly tricky, yes. My opinion is that we should be actively searching for a way and trialling what we come up with. I haven't put a lot of thought into how it would work exactly.

Maybe something like the RICO(sp) act in the states? Under that law if you can charge one person in the group with a federal crime, then you can charge every single one of the group with conspiracy? That would certainly put a dent in their capacity for crime..



No of course not. It's not about stopping all crime; just *organised* crime, which is much more dangerous for society. Gangs have the power of numbers. People who are in a gang are much harder to convict, and they have a lot more resources when they are criminally inclined..

Yeah, how is it different from a bowling teams team shirts?

Those lawn bowlers... f*cken menace they are, with those toothless grins and their mobility scooters blocking up teh footpaths, trouble with a capitol T

5 people convicted of a crime who are known to wear a certain patch = gang patch. There's plenty of ways you could define it..

Catholic Preists (child offending/sex crimes etc etc) could fall under your definition Yaks

I feel like that post is supposed to make me think "Oh yes, that is a problem isn't it" - but it doesn't

Far as I can tell the criminologists and law types cant agree on the correct ways to go about this, so Im not going to bother posting my views (cop out yes) lol u guyz I said cop

I am however in favour of compromising gangs activities as much as possible, apart from the ones who make all the crack, speed, extasy, pot and coke that I consume..... of course. (bob )


South Australia is the guinea pig anyway, let them make all the mistakes and we will know how to move forward from there. hopefully

On the patches thing, I heard someone (a cop maybe?) comment the other day: "Why do we want to ban the patches?! It's a walking advertisment that they're in a gang! Yet ol Michael Laws wants to drive the whole thing underground..."

Here's the story, might pay to have a read before getting to carried away...



http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/sep/15/aap-nz-set-to-follow-australian-gang-ban/

Looked at the title wrong and thought it was about gang banging

Pretty narrow-minded question though If they were underground, their impact would be *severely* limited. It's when they start taking over families, communities etc through making themselves as public and pervasive as possible that things really go downhill.

A gang is only as powerful as their numbers, and their ability to project a strong and united identity.

Mafia, Triads, Yakuza....none of them wear patches

I'm happy enough with designating a particular group as being "primarily for criminal purposes" (so long as that bar is set relatively high). But it's the next step of deciding someone is a member of that gang and banning pretty basic rights around freedom of association and freedom of movement that concern me - remembering that even our more serious gangs have purposes and links well beyond criminal behaviour.

Yeah, these are a completely level of gang, needing a completely different solution. They commit different types of crimes against different kinds of victims etc.

i thought it was something to do with harsher sentences for known gang members? which i think is fair. if you're going to associate yourself with those kinds of people you should be given the harder stick.

are they that different Yaksha - a lot of the street gangs are affiliated via business dealings with the other gangs - they are the street teams if you will for the illegal activites of the other 'gangs'

the orgnaised criminal rings will always find people to do their dirty work, be they patched or not

and like Gdub says a lot of gangs have made big efforts to distance themselves from their criminal past and are now working for the good of their communities

They're VERY different, in almost every respect. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be targetting the upper echelons, just that to do so is a hell of a lot harder and more expensive. And I don't really agree with the characterisation of street-gangs being the employees of the likes of the mafia Gangs are autonomous, there's no way they would allow themselves to get into a position where they are 'working for' someone else. The whole point of getting into a gang is so that you can be top of your world.

And sure, the top guys will always find someone to do their dirty work, but if they can't easily get into a partnership with a gang, then it becomes a lot harder. As we've discussed, gangs have the numbers and resources to pull off nearly any crime they want, with little impact to the gang's survival.



If they've had a criminal past, then they need to live with the consequences. If they want to break free, then let them start a new gang.

And a lot of that is simply public relations work. A marketing exercise to mask over their public perception which is closer to the truth.


After chatting to a family friend who is a plain clothes cop, and has worked in organised crime, we the public, have no real idea just how pervasive and detrimental to society the gangs really are. What we see in the media is not a realistic picture of the shit they do. ie We have no real idea just how bad these fuckers really are.

In saying that, the real problem on the streets these days are the Youth Street Gangs. While the bigger more established gangs are certainly a big problem, tey at least play by a set of "rules", universally accepted and acknowledged by others in that world. The Youth Street Gangs play by no rules. They just live to break the system down.

A criminal organisation? An organisation known to use crime to advance itself? Better ban Save Happy Valley and any union that pickets illegally. And Greenpeace - those fuckers are pirates.

I assumed they'd do what they do with the RICO legislation in the US and stipulate what crimes are applicable.

you say that like it's a bad thing? :>

A brilliant idea.

If you can't eliminate something, make it as hard as fucking possible for it to exist. Harass gang members. Stop their finances. Ban them. Drive them underground. They will exist, but there will be fewer of them.

I have no problem with banning any organisation that extols criminal acts.

they could surely do this as the law stands (to various degress)?

politicians love to berate gangs and offer up thousands of sound bites during crucial times (elections) and have done so my entire life yet gangs remain



as an aside - WTF is this thread doing in CA, if I'd wanted to discuss this topic in CA I'd have posted it fucking here, in a much more intelligent form

Because nobody ever actually devotes sufficient time and resources. You need a surge.

You need to say "right, for six months we're going to focus all spare police energy on gangs - that means less focus on ticketing, even some major inquiries. But we're going to wear it anyway."

Then you surge personnel against them. You use every trick in the book. You falsify evidence, you perjure yourself, you do whatever needs to be done to remove them. Then you've at least cut the infection down to a manageable level.

If you hate the police so much, fuck off to Somalia, where you won't have to worry.

err no you don't do that

Don't make me bust out the Jack Nicholson speech.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10532546