Should gangbangers have civil liberties too?

[manifold]

Bill bars gangs from 'safety zones'

Excerpt:

Gang members seen talking to one another or standing together on public property could be fined or jailed under a new bill being pushed in the Legislature and supported by some prosecutors and Boston police.

The bill would give broad authority to police and prosecutors to bring civil lawsuits against reputed gangs or their members, forbidding them to hang out together in the neighborhoods and parks that police say they terrorize.

Link:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/04/23/bill_bars_gangs_from_safety_zones/

 

[Ravi]

Why not just outlaw teenagers?

 

[Shogun]

didn't we see this same think against hippies and long-hairs back in the 60s and 70s?

 

[manifold]

didn't we see this same think against hippies and long-hairs back in the 60s and 70s?

I was too young to remember. But apparently your memory pre-dates your birth. That's a pretty neat trick.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's called "loitering", and it's illegal in some places. So long as there's a sign posted saying "No loitering" and everybody is subject to it, I have no problem at all with stopping it.

 

[manifold]

It's called "loitering", and it's illegal in some places. So long as there's a sign posted saying "No loitering" and everybody is subject to it, I have no problem at all with stopping it.

What else do you do in a park?

 

[Shogun]

it's what happens when you crack open a book outside of HDTV manuals and dirty magazines.

try it sometimes.

 

[AllieBaba]

Did the excerpt say "park". Why no, it didn't.

Anyway, back to what I said, "no loitering" is a reasonable solution to the problem. City parks often have hours posted, and you can enforce those hours. I've certainly seen obnoxious groups encouraged to leave parks, haven't you?

 

[Ravi]

Did the excerpt say "park". Why no, it didn't.

Anyway, back to what I said, "no loitering" is a reasonable solution to the problem. City parks often have hours posted, and you can enforce those hours. I've certainly seen obnoxious groups encouraged to leave parks, haven't you?

2nd paragraph.

 

[manifold]

Did the excerpt say "park". Why no, it didn't.

Anyway, back to what I said, "no loitering" is a reasonable solution to the problem. City parks often have hours posted, and you can enforce those hours. I've certainly seen obnoxious groups encouraged to leave parks, haven't you?

If you're going to offer an opinion about a newstory regarding a piece of proposed legislation, you might consider reading it first.

 

[jillian]

If you're going to offer an opinion about a newstory regarding a piece of proposed legislation, you might consider reading it first.

Considering I totally almost missed that you posted the relevant part of the article... .lol...

That said, it's been used in other places since the '80's, so I'm wondering how the statute is worded.

 

[manifold]

That said, it's been used in other places since the '80's, so I'm wondering how the statute is worded.

I'd submit that it probably doesn't violate the US Consitution, or at least it's never been challenged. However, each state Constitution is different. For example, according to at least one authoritative interpretation, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids laws banning same-sex marriage while other state Constitutions do not.

 

[Angel Heart]

I also wonder if it actually helped. If we've been doing it since the 80's, then there should be lots of data. Has it helped?

 

[Ravi]

I also wonder if it actually helped. If we've been doing it since the 80's, then there should be lots of data. Has it helped?

I guess you'd have to look at the crime statistics. I doubt it though, crime happens.

 

[jillian]

I'd submit that it probably doesn't violate the US Consitution, or at least it's never been challenged. However, each state Constitution is different. For example, according to at least one authoritative interpretation, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids laws banning same-sex marriage while other state Constitutions do not.

Absolutely. But under no circumstances can a State Constitution give fewer protections than the Federal Constitution, so will be interesting to see how it plays out. Because if it violates the Fed Constitution, it doesn't matter what the State Constitution would allow. I don't know if the Cali or Texas statutes have ever been challenged.

I can see where it would be effective, though. They just busted a huge group of gang bangers in Central Jersey either yesterday or the day before. They were selling drugs to pay for guns....

My feeling? Decriminalize the drugs and they have nothing to sell to *get* the guns...and have no need to fight over territory. Bit I digress.....

 

[manifold]

I also wonder if it actually helped. If we've been doing it since the 80's, then there should be lots of data. Has it helped?

They weasel out of proving anything of the sort by stating the obvious fact that gang-related crime can never be completely eliminated, but take my word for it, this helps us harass black teens for sure.

 

[Ravi]

Absolutely. But under no circumstances can a State Constitution give fewer protections than the Federal Constitution, so will be interesting to see how it plays out. Because if it violates the Fed Constitution, it doesn't matter what the State Constitution would allow. I don't know if the Cali or Texas statutes have ever been challenged.

I can see where it would be effective, though. They just busted a huge group of gang bangers in Central Jersey either yesterday or the day before. They were selling drugs to pay for guns....

My feeling? Decriminalize the drugs and they have nothing to sell to *get* the guns...and have no need to fight over territory. Bit I digress.....

Nice.

Make laws to curb our civil liberties because of other laws that already curb our civil liberties.

 

[jillian]

Nice.

Make laws to curb our civil liberties because of other laws that already curb our civil liberties.

Can you explain? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[jillian]

 

[Ravi]

I liked your post. It looks as if they are making laws to curb the right to hang out because of an existing law that forbids people putting drugs in their bodies.

It's just plain stupidity, IMO, restricting one civil liberty because they've already restricted another.