SilentScope001 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 The state has now taken a drastic step to stop gangs: they are now resorting to lawsuits. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070730/ap_on_re_us/gang_lawsuits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Anderson says if a civil injunction had been in place then, he and his friends would have simply moved outside the safety zone. that line alone prooves it's effective. If it deters gang crime so much that it's not effective or profitable to be inside the "zone" they move out of it, the logical thing to do is to keep pushing those zones larger and larger until you've pushed the gang members into such a small quadrant you're able to police that area alone and know the crime will be low to minimal in the "safe" zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 Yeah, and to argue against: that small quadrant will be "Liberty Slum". Concerating the crime problem on a small area may not actually be a good thing... I think the argument is that you are not stopping crime, you are merely moving people out of areas, forcing them into other areas, and therbey increasing crime rates in that other area. You aren't really dealing with the underlying issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Yeah, and to argue against: that small quadrant will be "Liberty Slum". Concerating the crime problem on a small area may not actually be a good thing... I think the argument is that you are not stopping crime, you are merely moving people out of areas, forcing them into other areas, and therbey increasing crime rates in that other area. You aren't really dealing with the underlying issues. which may or may not be realistically solvable problems in the first place. Not to mention people who commit crime for the fun of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Seems that resorting to suing "criminals" to stop their bad behavior is a sign of impotence. Why would the prospect of a lawsuit be more scary than the possibility of being locked behind bars for 20 to life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Seems that resorting to suing "criminals" to stop their bad behavior is a sign of impotence. Why would the prospect of a lawsuit be more scary than the possibility of being locked behind bars for 20 to life? Because prison's aren't as scary as we all seem to think they are. Not to mention the average petty criminal isn't getting 20-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Why would the prospect of a lawsuit be more scary than the possibility of being locked behind bars for 20 to life?Because they rarely if ever get that severe a sentence, and that is usually only after multiple offenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 The question, though, is what do you really accomplish trying to sue people with possibly no money (most gang bangers aren't exactly rich), who aren't afraid of a toothless system in the fiirst place? If they really have access to funds, they can get a good lawyer to trump the lawsuit filed against them. Meanwhile, activity doesn't cease or likely takes place in the hours where it's harder to ID the perp(s). Just doesn't seem very practical, merely another way for lawyers to make some money at the expense of the tax payers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.