 Last week, Oakland City Attorney John Russo and Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts announced plans for another gang injunction that would restrict 42 members of the Norteños in an area of Central Oakland that has been terrorized for years by murders, assaults, robberies and other violence committed by the gang.
In a statement, Russo said, "In neighborhoods of Central and East Oakland, residents and businesses have been caught in the middle of a decades-long firefight between this gang and its rivals."
According to OPD data, members of the Norteños have been involved in at least 35 shootings in 2010 alone, either as targets or as suspects.
The result has been the loss of lives, not only of gang members, but also innocent bystanders -- many of them children.
The actions by Russo and Batts brought out activists who contend injunctions that target specific communities violate the civil rights of those areas. "The problem in Oakland is less about gangs and more about violence," said Isaac Ontiveros, a member of Stop the Injunctions Coalition.
One of the chief arguments against gang injunctions is that it focuses on policing and jailing young criminals rather than addressing root problems, such as joblessness and poor education.
I know of no community where gang injunctions have been touted as a policy success.
A 1998 study on gang injunctions in the Yale Law journal concludes: "Gang violence should be addressed, and people should not be terrorized in their neighborhoods. Nonetheless, hasty 'emergency' measures like broad civil injunctions designed to circumvent the 'rule of law' are an unacceptable means of pursuing this goal."
Moreover, I agree that the root problem lies in the city's failure to offer adequate educational and economic opportunities for many of its young people. I also agree, based on the data, that gang injunctions are hardly a panacea.
But does that justify that law-abiding citizens should live in fear?
The problem with the debate in its current form is that it centers on the false choice of safety versus civil rights.
Seldom do those opposing gang injunctions speak of the rights of law-abiding citizens to not live in fear. A common refrain by those opposing gang injunctions, "Oakland is blaming our children.
Minors are not the object of the injunctions nor are they nameless, faceless individuals that could open the door to racial profiling. These are adults with extensive criminal records. This is not "West Side Story's" Jets versus Sharks; these are criminal enterprises conducting violent crimes.
The failure to address the fear of those who ought to have a reasonable expectation of safety is missing from the argument and makes it seem that those who oppose gang injunctions have more compassion for the victimizer than the innocent victims.
The city's failure to provide quality education and job opportunities does not grant immunity for those who now engage in extortion, murder, armed robbery and intimidation.
If innocent residents within the targeted areas do not feel safe and are unable to move from the area, the most logical next step would be for more of them to examine their Second Amendment options. I doubt this is an alternative that either side of the debate would wish to put forth.
Like most complex issues, gang injunctions do not fit neatly into theoretical constructs. As I wrote earlier this year, I reluctantly support Oakland's gang injunction policy. I share a number of concerns of those in opposition, but everything must be tried within the limits of the law so that innocent residents might enjoy the reasonable expectation of safety.
I welcome the efforts of Russo and Batts to provide Oakland residents that safety expectation. I also encourage those who oppose gang injunctions to continue to monitor, speak out and offer long-term solutions.
What's clear is that there is no singular tactic that can effectively address a problem that has been decades in the making
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Post a Comment. 
