Civil Gang Injunction Civil Gang Injunction.docx
- 1. Civil Gang Injunction Civil Gang Injunction Name Class Date Professor Civil Gang Injunction Civil gang injunctions refer to a public nuisance injunction designed to eliminate disruptive behavior associated with gang activity. Gangs gather in certain areas in a community creating a public nuisance. The state or district attorney can request an injunction from the court which will forbid the gang from gathering or engaging in activities. The goal is to suppress gang
- 2. activity by giving police the authority to arrest gang members based on the civil gang injunction (CGI). A public nuisance is anything that disturbs the peace of a community from loitering to selling drugs. Normal gang activity is suppressed when a CGI is put into place. Civil gang injunctions provide critical advantages to police departments trying to disrupt gang activity, as well as to the residents living in areas afflicted by gangs (Hynes, 2011). In many cases the hands of police are tied when gangs gather and take over a community but with the injunction they have more authority to act. Gangs engage in violent crime but they also engage in other types of crimes such as prostitution, vandalism, acts of violence, and the sales of drugs. They also intimidate and coerce members of the community to ignore their crimes. Any type of behavior that causes fear in the community members or disrupts the whole community can be considered a public nuisance. Police can enforce the injunction which could forbid any type of behavior associated with gangs (Maxson, 2005). For example the injunction may require gang members to have a curfew or it could forbid gang gatherings. Any time a gang member is caught associating with another gang member they can be charged under the CGI. The injunction could forbid gang members to wear their closers or throw their gangs signs or even forbid gang recruitment activity. The civil gang injunction has been used in many cities as a tool to rid communities of gang activity. The City of Fairfield Police Department is an example of a city that implemented a civil gang injunction (CGI) where there was a successful change in gang activity (Hynes, 2011). In this case Officer Jeff Osgood researched the various CGI being used in different cities before presenting the information to the city administration. The city supported the efforts of Officer Osgood and enacted a new public nuisance statue. As a result of the civil gang injunction (CGI) the city of Fairfield saw a major reduction in gang activity. The use of the CGI was a success because it deterred the criminal behaviors of gangs.
- 3. In another example the city of Oakland enacted a similar CGI in order to help suppress the huge gang problem in the city. The goal of the Oakland Police Department once the gang injunction went into place was to rid the city of the North Side Oakland (NSO) and their violent and criminal behavior (Hynes, 2011). The gang was a major nuisance for community members but despite this nuisance when the injunction was put into place it was not widely support by community members. In order for police to be able to enforce the CGI they must be alerted about the gang behavior. The problem was community members were to fearful of the gang to report their activities. Other challenges that surfaced as a result of the CGI gang injunctions in general. For one gang members claimed the injunction violates due process rights and promotes racial profiling and harassment, while critics complain it diverts funds better spent on social justice programs (Hynes, 2011). Overtime the city of Oakland did see positive results due to the CGI and the other issues were addressed. Without these injunctions the number of gang in the areas would only continue to grow. The civil gang injunction is a tool that can be used by police to help suppress a gang problem in a community. They reduce the number of gang associated crimes and help to clean up neighborhoods when they are prevented from tagging property with graffiti or because gangs are no longer lurking on the corners creating a public nuisance and increasing the level of fear of crime by community members. The CGI gives community members back their community and provide an opportunity for gang members to get away from the gang life. Without this type of injunction a community can easily become overrun with gang violence and crime.
- 4. References Hynes, T. & Osgood, J. (2005). Civil Gang Injunctions: What Can They Do for Your City? Retrieved June 24, 2014 from http://www.westerncity.com/Western-City/December- 2011/Civil-Gang-Injunctions Maxson, C, (2005). It’s Getting Crazy Out There”: Can a Civil Gang Injunction Change a Community?, Criminology and Pub. Pol’y, 4(3): p. 601. Right to Expression Right to Expression Name Class Date Professor
- 5. Right to Expression Americans live in a society where they are afforded many freedoms and many rights. One of these freedoms is guaranteed in the First Amendment. Citizens are guaranteed the right to free expression and free association in this amendment along with other important rights. What this means is that citizens cannot be forbidden by the government to express their opinions or to establish clubs or organizations that may oppose the opinion of the government. When citizens oppose things in American society they have the freedom to express this opposition by holding peaceful demonstrations or rallies. While citizens have the right to express their ire or opposition they do not have the right to use violence. Americans do have the right to speak out and oppose the government but this must be done peacefully when the opposition by the public is violent it is not a free expression but an act of terrorism. According to the ACLU (2005) the Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." If the right to expression is taken away from the citizen many other important rights would be lost. The right to free expression was established by our forefathers to prevent the government from becoming oppressive. The centralized (federal) government was established to protect citizens from outside threats. The role of the state at this time was to completely govern. When this did not work the
- 6. Constitution was established in order to share the responsibility of governing between the federal government and the state. In order to ensure the federal government never became oppressive the rights of the state were established as well as the right of the individual. Since the federal government is tasked with keeping citizens safe the question over self expression and protecting citizens from harm has been a topic of debate for centuries. After 9/11 the focus of the federal shifted to protecting citizens from further attacks over ensuring their individual rights being rigidly protected. Part of this protection was forbidding any acts of terrorism through legislation. Acts of terrorism included certain types of speech. When the government created legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act, political expression was forever limited. Since the enactment of the Patriot Act the citizens first and fourth management rights have been severely limited (Uhalova, 2006). When citizens have no freedom to express their political viewpoints American citizens no longer live in an actual democracy. The right to expression ensures when a government official acts badly the citizen can complain or if the government is displaying acts of oppression the citizen can publically complain. The Patriot Act forbids expression against the government or any other group in society that is paired with threats of violence. While this legislation and other severely dampens the right to expression there are two differing opinions on this violation of the citizen. One opinion is any legislation preventing citizens freedom of expression is wrong and a violation of the constitution. The other opinion is in order to keep the public safe some expressions must be stopped. Based on the first argument there are never any circumstances where it is okay for the government to insert their power and limit the citizens right to expression. This has been the case since the creation of the Constitution. Groups, such as the KKK have been free to express any sick, twisted, or evil ideal they deem appropriate. While many do agree with the expression of
- 7. the KKK in a democratic society they have this right. When the government even limits self expression by the smallest amount it will erode the whole idea of freedom. On the other hand the acts of terrorists caused the death of almost 3,000 innocent citizens. These actions were the result of people visiting America on work Visas to be free to express any ideal about America they wished without any fear of repercussions. The freedom afforded citizens to express any ideal or all types of opposition to the government can in fact threaten their safety and ability to live peacefully in a free society. The question becomes which of the two is more important, personal freedoms or safety of the citizens? The truth is the Patriot Act violates freedom of speech in the way that people are losing the right to say what and how they truly feel (Uhalova, 2006). This is wrong no matter how safe it makes citizens feel or how badly the government wants to control the actions of the people. After 9/11 the government began running on far forgetting why this country was created to protect the rights of the citizen. Every time the rights of the citizen are intruded upon by the government and this behavior is allowed the countries becomes less and less of a democracy. Freedom of expression is a necessary part of preventing the government from every becoming oppressive and taking away the rights of the citizen. America has faced many conflicts that have threatened the citizen’s right to freedom of expression in the past from the Civil Rights movement to the attacks on 9/11. The ability to peacefully protest in the Civil Rights movement led to equality for all while the attacks on 9/11 resulted in citizens being stripped of important First and Fourth Amendment rights. No matter the conflict or the threat to the nation there is never a good reason to intrude upon the citizens right to freedom of expression. References ACLU. (2005). Freedom of Expression. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from
- 8. https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/freedom-expression Uhalova, K. (2006). The Patriot Act vs. the Constitution. Retrieved August 19, 2014 from http://eslprog.kean.edu:8080/default.asp?PageID=201%20