Target audience: Prosecutors,
researchers, judges, State and local legislators, corrections
officers, victim advocates, and policymakers. ********************
Street gangs have been part
of America's urban landscape for most of the country's history
and a subject of research since at least the 1920's. But
most street gangs in the first third of the century were
small groups involved in delinquent acts or relatively minor
crimes, primarily fights with other gangs. As the year 2000
approaches, there are many more different types of street
gangs. Individual members, gang cliques, or entire gang
organizations traffic in drugs; commit shootings, assaults,
robbery, extortion, and other felonies; and terrorize neighborhoods.
The most ambitious gang members have spread out from their
home jurisdictions to other cities and States. An increasing
number are supported by the sale of crack cocaine, heroin,
and other illegal drugs, and they have easy access to more
firepower than the average patrol officer. Further, in many
impoverished and transitional neighborhoods, children are
born into or must contend with second- and third-generation
street gangs.
Until recently, research
on gangs centered on exploring reasons for gang formation
and participation, with a related emphasis on public policy
that deters vulnerable youths from joining gangs. But the
destruction and fear generated by today's street gangs have
elevated the importance of research on effective community
and criminal justice responses to them. Communities overwhelmed
by violent gangs must have relief from the terror before
revitalization, initiatives to strengthen families, school
improvements, and other desired interventions can succeed.
Prosecutors throughout the country are striving to help
give communities breathing room by building strong cases
that remove violent gang members from the streets. It is
only in the last few years, however, that federally sponsored
research has begun to look at the gang problem from the
prosecutors' perspective and to explore the strategies they
use.
NIJ research on gangs and
gang prosecution
The legal options available
to prosecutors to combat gangs vary considerably, as do
the strategies they employ and the policy choices they make.
To learn more about gang prosecution at the local level,
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored a National
Assessment on Gang Prosecution, which was conducted by the
Institute for Law and Justice.1 This project, like other
NIJ-supported national assessments in the past few years,
was designed to obtain baseline information in a subject
area in which comparatively little research had been done.
It was one of six NIJ
projects on gangs initiated in FY 1992; they included studies
on gangs and migration patterns, drug sales, criminal behavior,
law enforcement anti-gang measures, and gangs in correctional
facilities.
The study on gang prosecution
had three main components: a national survey of a representative
sample of local prosecutors; an examination of
State laws and proposed legislation specifically targeted
at street gang activity; and detailed case studies of gang
prosecution efforts at four sites. The study addressed the
following key issues:
-
Prosecutors' perceptions
of gang-related crime.
-
Local definitions of
gang-related crime.
-
Extent of gang-related
crime.
-
Organizational arrangements
to deal with gang-related crime.
-
Criminal statutes used
against street gangs.
-
Street Terrorism Enforcement
and Prevention Acts.
-
Prosecution strategies
and tactics.
-
Problems in dealing
with gang cases.
-
Recommendations for
dealing with street gangs.
Study methodology. A survey
instrument covering the topics above was mailed to 368 State
prosecutors' offices. All 175 counties with populations
greater than 250,000 were included in the sample group.
The other 193 prosecutors' offices were randomly selected
from counties with from 50,000 to 250,000 residents. Eighty
percent (140) of the prosecutors in large jurisdictions
responded, with 84 percent (118 respondents) reporting gang
problems in their jurisdictions; and 83 percent (160) of
the small jurisdictions responded, with 46 percent (74 respondents)
reporting gang problems. The analysis is based on the 192
completed surveys in which prosecutors reported having gang
problems.
In addition to the survey,
four site visits were made to examine how local prosecutors
confront street gangs in different cities and States. The
purpose was to compare the details of these prosecutors'
operations with the more general findings of the national
survey and the legislative review. The sites included two
jurisdictions in States with gang legislation and two in
States without gang legislation, which are identified below:
-
Multnomah County (Portland),
Oregon (no specific gang legislation).
-
Suffolk County (Boston),
Massachusetts (no specific gang legislation).
-
Oklahoma County (Oklahoma
City), Oklahoma (State gang legislation).
-
Riverside County, California
(Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act).
Defining gang and gang-related
crime. "Gang" is not a historic legal term; that
is, in the absence of statutory definition, gang is not
a term of fixed legal meaning. For that reason, every State
that has enacted a gang statute has undertaken to define
gang, and these statutory definitions are similar. They
state how many persons (usually a minimum of three) must
be involved, what type of general activity they engage in,
and the kinds of crimes involved. The type of activity is
sometimes described in a separate definition of "pattern
of criminal gang activity." In addition, many police
departments have operational definitions of gang and gang-related
crime to guide investigators, intelligence and crime analysts,
and law enforcement officers. Gang prevention and intervention
programs have also developed working definitions of gang.
Finally, distinctions are often made according to the level
of commitment to a gang, for example, "hardcore member,"
"affiliate," and "wannabe."
One survey question asked
prosecutors how their offices defined gang-related crime
and offered two response alternatives: (1) any crime committed
by a gang member, or (2) only a crime committed by a gang
member that is related to a gang activity. The first option
addressed gang members as individuals, the second, gangs
as organizations. The distinction could produce substantial
differences in data reported.2
Survey findings
The survey results show
that 44 percent of prosecutors in large jurisdictions classified
any crime committed by a gang member as a gang-related crime,
whether or not the outcome of the crime benefited the gang.
However, another 44 percent of large jurisdiction prosecutors
defined a gang crime as only a crime committed by a gang
member for the benefit of the gang. In some large jurisdictions,
only crimes committed by a targeted gang leader or crimes
of violence were treated as gang-related, an even more narrowly
focused approach.
Although prosecutors in
large jurisdictions were almost evenly divided in their
definitions of gang-related crime between these two alternatives,
only 27 percent of small jurisdiction prosecutors classified
as gang related any crime committed by a gang member. Most
small jurisdictions (59 percent) used the narrower definition.
Prosecutors regarded street gangs as distinct from more
sophisticated organized crime groups, but they seemed less
interested than police in definitional issues. With some
important exceptions, prosecutors charged gang members and
affiliates under State drug, homicide, assault, and other
criminal laws far more often than they did under conspiracy,
Racketeering Influenced Criminal Organizations (RICO), or
specialized street gang laws. Unless they operated their
own computerized gang data bases or employed their own gang
investigators, prosecutors relied on police to track the
number of gangs, gang sets, and gang members in their communities.
Gang-related violence. Extreme
violence has become an integral element of the gang subculture.
Seventy-eight percent of prosecutors in both large
and small jurisdictions reported increases in gang-related
violence from 1990 to 1993. According to prosecutors in
large jurisdictions, more than 70 percent of all types of
gangs found in their communities were involved in violent
crimes. In 1991 the average number of gang-related homicides
prosecuted was 8.9 in large jurisdictions and 1.75 in small
jurisdictions; and the largest number of gang homicides
prosecuted by a single office was 99 in Los Angeles County,
California.
To gauge the effect of violent
gang crime on caseloads, the survey asked for the number
of gang-related homicides, drive by shootings, and violent
crimes prosecuted per month in 1991. Prosecutors in large
jurisdictions handled an average of 15.1 gang-related violent
crimes per month, compared to 3.3 in small jurisdictions.
Further, in large jurisdictions, more than one-fifth of
prosecutors handled an average of over 30 gang-related violent
crimes per month. Types of gangs and gang activity. The
survey asked prosecutors to indicate the types of gangs
operating within their jurisdictions; whether or not members
of those gangs were involved in drugs and/or in committing
violent crimes; and the types of drugs involved for gangs
identified as drug traffickers.
With regard to types of
gangs, the researchers sought to provide respondents with
understandable choices on the survey questionnaire. Since
historically most street gangs were formed--and continue
to attract members--along racial or ethnic lines, the questionnaire
gave respondents the following choices (Note: the questionnaire
did not ask for distinctions in the cultural heritage of
Hispanic or Asian gang members):
-
Locally based, African-American
gangs.
-
Gangs based in the Los
Angeles area (e.g., Crips, Bloods).
-
Gangs with origins in
the Caribbean (e.g., Jamaican, Dominican Republic).
-
Hispanic gangs.
-
Asian gangs.
-
Motorcycle gangs.
-
Hate gangs (e.g., KKK,
Aryan Nation).
-
Other.
Among respondents who indicated
they had gang problems, 83 percent in large jurisdictions
and 60 percent in small jurisdictions reported the presence
of local African-American gangs (i.e., gangs that originated
in that jurisdiction as distinguished from Crips or Bloods
from California) (see exhibit 2). The second most prevalent
gang types in large jurisdictions were Hispanic gangs (reported
by 64 percent of prosecutors), followed closely by motorcycle
gangs (62 percent). Similarly, 49 percent of small jurisdiction
prosecutors indicated that motorcycle gangs were present,
followed by approximately 43 percent reporting Hispanic
gangs. Approximately 88 percent of large and 81 percent
of small jurisdiction prosecutors reported that the Hispanic
gangs in their communities trafficked in drugs. Similarly,
90 percent of motorcycle gangs in large and 86 percent in
small jurisdictions were reported to be involved in sales
of drugs, including methamphetamines, cocaine, marijuana,
and heroin.
The notoriety of the Crips
and Bloods, two dominant gangs of the Los Angeles area,
has led to a spread of their "colors" (manner
of dress) and violent lifestyles to other cities. In large
jurisdictions, 50 percent of prosecutors reported the presence
of Crips and Bloods, with 90 percent involved in violent
crime and 92 percent involved in drug trafficking. Somewhat
fewer small jurisdictions reported Crips and Bloods (41
percent), but when present, they were reported to have similarly
high rates of involvement in violent crime (77 percent)
and drug trafficking (97 percent). However, the survey data
did not reveal whether local Crips and Bloods had any continuing
connection with Los Angeles Crips and Bloods. The site studies
indicated that the names and colors often persisted long
after the cessation of any real Los Angeles connection.
Asian and hate gangs were
more frequently reported to be involved in violent crime
than in drug trafficking. The presence of Asian gangs was
reported by prosecutors in 52 percent of large but only
in 14 percent of small jurisdictions. More than 90 percent
of Asian gangs were associated with violent crimes, but
only 46 percent (40 percent in small jurisdictions) were
said to be involved in drug trafficking. Hate gangs, including
skinheads and other groups, had the lowest reported involvement
in drug trafficking in all jurisdictions, but they were
characterized as violent by 74 percent of large jurisdiction
prosecutors and 59 percent of respondents in small jurisdictions.
Caribbean-based gangs were
reported in 43 percent of large and 16 percent of small
jurisdictions, and they were virtually always reported to
be involved in drug trafficking. This pattern was similar
in small jurisdictions. These gangs dealt mainly in cocaine
(more than 95 percent).
Prosecution strategies and
tactics
Specialized gang units. Specialized gang
units are common in police departments of cities with established,
as well
as emerging, gang problems,3
but are less common in prosecutors' offices. Where they
are established, prosecutors' gang units generally use a
vertical prosecution process, whereby one attorney (or a
small group of attorneys knowledgeable about gangs) is designated
to handle a case from its inception. This method is distinguished
from other arrangements in which several different attorneys
handle each case, depending on the stage of processing.
Many of the prosecutors responding to the survey favored
vertical prosecution by a specialized gang unit, particularly
when coordinated with gang units of local law enforcement
agencies.
The survey results indicate that 30 percent
of prosecutors in large jurisdictions (5 percent in small)
have formed gang units using vertical prosecution to focus
on gang members. In large counties, these units were usually
staffed by two to four full-time attorneys. Los Angeles
County had the largest gang unit with 48 full-time attorneys.
Almost 40 percent of large and 62 percent of small counties
assigned gang cases to attorneys on the basis of caseload.
In California, several jurisdictions surveyed
combined vertical with proactive prosecution. The San Diego
County, California, district attorney's office reported
operations of a gang prosecution unit that has served as
a national model for this approach.4 One San Diego assistant
district attorney explained that "Whereas reactive
prosecution tends to be more a response to a past chain
of events (i.e., a crime occurring and police investigation
being completed), `proactive' implies an attempt to stop
the crime from occurring or at least to participate in the
initial investigation."5
In Riverside County, California, one of
the case study sites, the district attorney's office has
also taken a proactive approach. It operates an on-call
program with 10 prosecutors, including gang prosecutors
who handle murder cases. On these most serious crimes, the
district attorney's office does not wait for cases to make
their way through the system. Instead, gang prosecutors
go out on the street with police to interview victims and
witnesses and talk to gang members.
Victim/witness cooperation and protection.
Prosecutors must often take extraordinary
measures to protect witnesses in gang cases before, during,
and after trial. They consistently stressed the importance
of being able to offer protection immediately to ensure
cooperation. In the survey, prosecutors in large and small
jurisdictions (89 and 74 percent respectively) agreed that
one of their most significant problems was obtaining the
cooperation of victims and witnesses. Reluctance
of victims and witnesses to cooperate was seen to be based
on at least three factors:
-
Fear, both because of
direct threats of retaliation and because of gang dominance
of a neighborhood.
-
A neighborhood culture
that discouraged being a "snitch."
-
Involvement of the victim
or witness in gang activity. (Gang cases are often characterized
by the rotating status of victim, witness, and defendant.)
Other problems cited include
intimidation of victims and witnesses (a moderate or major
problem for 81 percent of large and 68 percent of small
jurisdictions), and victim and witness credibility (a moderate
or major problem for 77 percent of large and 69 percent
of small jurisdictions). A lack of resources for victim/witness
protection was also considered a moderate or major problem
by 74 percent of large and 66 percent of small jurisdiction
prosecutors.
Because of these concerns, the need for special victim and
witness protection efforts and programs is particularly
important. Many prosecutors' offices reported encouraging
the police to videotape all statements by witnesses to gang-related
crimes in the event that these witnesses recant at trial,
suffer a "loss of memory," or are killed. Others
were paying increased attention to cases involving non police
witnesses to reverse a traditional neglect of these cases.
Part of the battle here involves overcoming witnesses' distrust
of the criminal justice system and their perceptions of
the system as indifferent, inefficient, or a "revolving
door."
Prosecutors' offices in
which victim advocates work in tandem with investigators
also reported considerable success with gang-related cases.
The Suffolk County, Massachusetts, prosecutor's gang task
force has a victim advocate and an investigator who both
spend their time dealing directly with victims and witnesses
in gang cases. The victim advocate regards this job as a
significantly different kind of advocacy. The clients are
primarily young adults ages 17 through 23. Handling these
cases requires extensive personal contact; notices and telephone
calls are not enough. The victim advocate prepares witnesses
for trial, reviews grand jury testimony with them, and reviews
the district attorney's questions. Since many witnesses
in gang cases do not have telephones, the advocate often
goes to their homes to remind them of court dates and, if
necessary, wakes them up and transports them to court. Because
of close and consistent contact with victims and witnesses,
the victim advocate also effectively serves as a fact finder
for the gang prosecutors.
The Multnomah County victim-witness
advocate also emphasizes that personal contact is very important
to success in this work. An aggressive victim-advocate program,
one that contacts the victim and witnesses immediately and
develops and maintains their cooperation, can be one of
the most significant factors in successful prosecutions.
The Multnomah County advocate tries to build trust with
the clients and keep them informed of the progress of the
case. The advocate makes a point to be available by voice
mail 24 hours a day. The gang unit lawyers also willingly
go out on the street and visit witnesses with the advocate.
Adequacy of criminal law
Street gangs are a social
and political concern because of the crimes that their members
commit. Gang members may have different motivations for
their crimes than other criminals, but the crimes are proscribed
by existing criminal law. Largely because of this, only
a few legislatures have defined new substantive criminal
offenses in response to rising gang activity.
In addition to defining
basic criminal offenses-- crimes against persons, property,
and public order--State criminal codes set forth standards
for criminal responsibility and define inchoate crimes.
Those who aid and abet the commission of crimes, even though
they do not directly participate in the criminal acts themselves,
can also be held criminally responsible. Inchoate crimes
such as attempt and conspiracy are punishable even though
the crime itself is not completed. Conspiracy law also enables
prosecutors to reach criminal conspirators who are not at
the scene of the crime itself. All these factors mean that
traditional criminal law can reach most gang crime.
Existing laws in most jurisdictions
also may allow more options for prosecuting than statutes
specifically aimed at gang members and crimes. In Los Angeles,
for instance: ". . . if it is established that a person
is a gang member (e.g., through affiliation, clothing, witness
testimony), the policy is to seek the maximum penalty. Pursuit
of the maximum penalty is guided by the beliefs that gang
members commit a greater variety of crimes than non-gang
members; gang members commit crimes over a longer period
of time than non-gang members; gang members are more violent
than
non-gang members. . . . In some States, conviction for a
gang-related crime limits the range of possible sentences."6
One example of this type
of option is an Oklahoma State gang statute. Oklahoma County
prosecutors reported that, in practice, the statute has
not been very useful. By its terms, the statute is limited
to contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Its sanctions
are relatively light, and it requires proving a series of
elements in addition to proving an underlying predicate
crime. Oklahoma County has thus proceeded against gang members
under the ordinary provisions of the Oklahoma criminal code
and has had great success.
RICO. In its more than 20
years of existence, the Federal RICO statute has emerged
as one of law enforcement's most effective tools for combating
organized criminal activity. As one researcher has observed,
"Because of the unique properties of its net-using
predicate crimes, including many State crimes, when proved
as part of an ongoing enterprise--RICO has been often used
as the prosecutorial weapon which can snag heretofore insulated
high-ranking criminal group members, and deliver heavy sentences
beyond the scope of the penalties of the individual crimes
themselves."7
However, with some exceptions,
criminal street gangs are much less sophisticated and hierarchical
than traditional organized crime groups. Although 31 States
have a RICO statute,8 only 17 percent of large county prosecutors
and less than 10 percent in small counties have ever used
it against gang members. Thirty-six percent of prosecutors
in both large and small counties reported that they did
use State drug kingpin statutes against gang members. State
conspiracy laws were used by 37 percent of large jurisdictions
and 26 percent of small jurisdictions. Prosecutors also
used habitual criminal acts, and criminal responsibility,
narcotics, malicious harassment, and drive by shooting statutes.
STEP Acts. Street Terrorism
Enforcement and Prevention (STEP) Acts, based on the RICO
model, use a series of predicate crimes as the basis for
sentence enhancements and provide for civil forfeiture of
a street gang's assets and the proceeds of its criminal
activities. Some States have added drive by shooting statutes.
STEP Acts can be valuable because they turn specific intent
crimes like attempted murder or aggravated assault into
general intent crimes. These statutes are of particular
interest for two reasons. First, they undertake to deal
with street gangs in a comprehensive fashion at one place
in the State code. Second, they attempt to address the constitutional
issues likely to be raised in the prosecution of street
gang cases.
Five States (California,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Illinois) have enacted
STEP Acts. California's STEP Act is the prototype because
it links three definitions: "criminal street gang,"
"pattern of criminal gang activity," and "participation
in a criminal street gang." A pattern of criminal gang
activity in California means commission of one or more of
seven predicate offenses on two or more separate occasions.
A "criminal street gang" is an ongoing group that
has as one of its primary activities the commission of one
or more of these predicate crimes, plus "a common name
or common identifying sign or symbol whose members individually
or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal gang activity."
"Participation in a criminal street gang" is a
separate offense, carefully defined to guard against unconstitutional
infringement of the rights of free association and free
speech.9
Riverside County, California,
"steps" both street gangs and gang members by
bringing them within the parameters of the STEP Act. It
guides the compilation of intelligence pertaining to a particular
gang, laying the foundation for identification of the gang
and its members. The street gang unit of the City of Riverside
police department compiles three related notebooks on a
targeted gang. The first notebook contains copies of all
incident, arrest, investigative, supplemental, and field
interrogation reports pertaining to the gang. The second
notebook contains the personal records of gang members and
affiliates, including pictures, prints, rap sheets, and
copies of any reports in which their names appear. The third
consists of pictures of gang members, individually and together,
showing their colors, tattoos, signs, and other indicia
of street gang affiliation. The notebook also includes pictures
of gang graffiti, with places and dates carefully recorded.
Riverside police officers
also serve certain gang members with written notices, developed
by the prosecutor, which state that a specific gang is considered
a criminal street gang under the STEP Act and that participation
in the gang can subject an individual to a sentence of 1
to 3 years. The carefully preserved record of notification
destroys any claim that a defendant did not know of the
street gang's criminal activity, knowledge being one of
the bases for STEP Act prosecution. In addition, prosecutors
reported that the notice itself has had an inhibiting effect
on many gang members.
Gang legislation. There
are two different approaches to gang legislation. One is
to adopt a gang statute like California's STEP Act. The
other is to amend existing criminal codes to add gang offenses.
These approaches are not radically different. Instead of
defining several new criminal offenses involving gangs,
street terrorism acts specifically incorporate several parts
of existing criminal codes by reference. Then they enhance
penalties or create civil remedies, or both, for gang-related
criminal activity.
Only 14 States have enacted
new code provisions on street gangs. For the most part,
these statutes have enhanced sanctions for crimes committed
while participating in street gang activity, but they have
not created many new substantive criminal offenses. Prosecutors
in the other 36 States said they proceed against street
gangs under existing provisions of their criminal codes.
However, some States have legislated specifically on two
typical gang offenses, random shootings and defacing property
with graffiti, which have not always been adequately addressed
by State criminal codes.
Special statutes. The survey
of prosecutors asked what other criminal statutes prosecutors
were using to combat gangs and received a variety of answers.
They included habitual criminal acts, criminal responsibility
provisions (i.e., aiding and abetting, or accomplice provisions),
narcotics laws, malicious harassment, drive by shooting
statutes, and others. When asked what they would like to
see addressed by any new legislation,
prosecutors mentioned a wide range of possibilities, including
the following:
-
Drive by shootings.
-
Witness protection programs.
-
Recruitment of gang
members.
-
Rural gang prevention
laws.
-
Lowering age on juvenile
offenses.
-
Vehicle forfeiture.
-
Brandishing a weapon.
-
Continuing criminal enterprise.
-
Loitering.
-
Greater accessibility
of juvenile records.
-
Automatic adult/juvenile
certification for gang-related crimes.
-
Pointing weapon from
vehicle.
Adjudication. Once cases
reach the courts, prosecutors are often frustrated with
several factors that hamper the prosecution of gang members.
Though it appears that sentencing enhancements might lessen
the recycling of gang members through the criminal justice
system, the State's resources must be considered in pursuing
such enhancements. Gang members, especially juveniles, sometimes
pass through the system without serving any sentence. Problems
that have always existed within the juvenile justice system
make gang prosecution especially difficult because so many
gang members today are juveniles. Prosecutors expressed
frustration with the effectiveness of the juvenile justice
system in handling juveniles involved in gang crimes. Where
criminal justice officials contend with a shortage of detention
facilities, juveniles--even those with prior convictions--may
receive only intensive probation for a felony charge. In
such a situation, sentencing enhancements and stricter penalties
will have little effect on the gang problem.
State juvenile codes were
not designed for the serious violence that characterizes
contemporary street gang crime, and the gang statutes almost
completely overlook juveniles. Often, the prosecutorial
response to this difficulty is to seek transfer of serious
juvenile offenders into adult court and correctional systems.
But such transfers may be very difficult to obtain because
of strong traditions favoring adjudication and treatment
of juveniles within the juvenile court and corrections systems.
In Suffolk County, Massachusetts,
the courts are very resistant to the transfer of juveniles.
In one 5-month period in 1993, the juvenile prosecutor asked
for nine transfers but obtained only one. The Commonwealth
can and sometimes has appealed the juvenile court's retention
of jurisdiction. Oklahoma County, however, reacts differently
to juveniles who commit serious and violent crimes. Oklahoma
juvenile law does not give juveniles the same wall of protection
found in many other States. Juveniles aged 16 and 17 accused
of violent crimes enumerated in the statute are tried as
adults rather than juveniles. The burden is on the juveniles
to demonstrate why they should not be certified for trial
as an adult. This procedure is referred to as "reverse
cert."10
In Multnomah County, Oregon,
a change of policy with regard to juvenile prosecution has
significantly altered the ratio of violent juvenile cases
certified from the juvenile to the adult court system. By
pursuing certification on all gun cases and all violent
gang-related crimes, the office has persuaded the juvenile
court of the seriousness of these offenses and the necessity
of transfer.
Conclusions
The results of the national
assessment on gang prosecution belie the common belief that
cities have refused to recognize the presence of gangs.
More than 80 percent of prosecutors responding from large
cities acknowledged gangs in their jurisdictions. Prosecutors
agreed that the presence of gangs has become more widespread,
that the amount of gang-related violence has been increasing,
and that violence and drugs have become paramount problems
with regard to gang crime. Many observed that drug traffickers
who were not affiliated with gangs were more like independent
entrepreneurs, loosely aligned with one another through
interdependent distribution of drugs. In contrast, street
gangs were more organized as units to conduct business in
drugs. Further, urban gangs were often seen as more dangerous,
having access to more powerful weapons, and more prone to
violence.
Prosecutors favored vertical
prosecution of gang members. However, in many cases, this
may mean vertical prosecution by a small group of gang specialists,
rather than by a single prosecutor. The true advantage of
a specialized gang unit is not necessarily in vertical prosecution
of every case, but in having a small number of lawyers filter
related cases. As prosecutors come to know gangs and gang
members in their jurisdictions, they can see connections
(such as retribution, territorial feuds) between what at
first glance seem to be random or unrelated criminal incidents.
In the adjudication of cases,
prosecutors reported they consider victim and witness cooperation
and protection a major issue. In inter gang violence, perpetrator,
victim, and witness play interchangeable and revolving roles.
The likelihood of intimidation for pressing charges or agreeing
to testify is always a factor in gang cases and should be
among the first problems addressed by law enforcement and
prosecutors. Today's victims or witnesses become tomorrow's
perpetrators as they seek revenge against either an individual
or a gang, or seek to regain lost face or lost territory.
Furthermore, the high visibility of gang violence creates
an intimidating atmosphere that keeps non-gang witnesses
from coming forward.
Moreover, few State and
local witness and victim protection programs are geared
specifically toward victims and witnesses of gang crime.
Strong victim and witness advocacy programs have been extremely
valuable in attacking these problems. Ordinary victim-witness
programs have not sufficed for gang cases. Gang members
do not want or seek the help of police and prosecutors.
They try to take care of their problems themselves, and
people who live in gang-dominated neighborhoods fear the
gangs. Personal contacts, special efforts to build trust,
and attention to witnesses' need for protection are essential.
Advocates must also help find witnesses, persuade them to
testify, and support them in other ways. If special programs
are not in place, jurisdictions must exercise other possible
options, such as requests to the U.S. Attorney's Office
to put witnesses in the Federal protection program, requests
to obtain court protective orders prohibiting release of
witnesses' names until just prior to testimony, and requests
to deny bail to gang defendants.
In each of four sites visited
in this study, gang prosecution units quickly shifted emphasis
from drugs to violent crime to all crime committed by gang
members. Traditional drug enforcement techniques remained
effective against traditional drug trafficking, but were
not necessarily effective against other types of gang crime.
Prosecutors did not express
optimism about gangs in the future. In their work, they
have learned a great deal about gangs, gang members, and
the circumstances that have produced them. The gang members
who come to their attention are often far beyond the reach
of social interventions designed to deter youths from involvement
in gang or drug lifestyles. Although they stated that prosecuting
gangs would not completely solve the gang problem, they
intend to pursue prosecutions as vigorously as possible.
But as indicated by their comments on the survey questionnaire
and in interviews, gang prosecutors consistently advocated
early intervention with children and youths and more effective
services to strengthen families as the best way to prevent
gang crime and violence.
Notes
-
The American Prosecutors
Research Institute of the National District Attorneys
Association assisted the project by reviewing the draft
survey instrument, encouraging prosecutors to respond
to the survey, and reviewing the final report on the
project.
-
Maxon, C., and M. Klein,
"Street Gang Violence: Twice as Great or Half as
Great?" in C. Ron Huff, ed., Gangs in America,
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.
-
Institute for Law and
Justice, results of a survey of 175 law enforcement
agencies conducted for the Urban Street Gang Drug Trafficking
Enforcement Program, unpublished, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, 1992.
-
Ibid.
-
Williams, W.A., "The
Case for Proactive Prosecution," Criminal Justice
Journal, 13 (1992):391.
-
Conly, C.H., et al,
Street Gangs: Current Knowledge and Strategies, Issues
and Practices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1993,
p. 54.
-
Dombrink, J., "Draft
Study of the Prosecution and Investigation of Asian
Organized Crime," presented at the National Field
Study on Gang Violence Conference, Office of Justice
Programs, Los Angeles, CA, March 13-14, 1991.
-
Bonney, L.S., "The
Prosecution of Sophisticated Urban Street Gangs: A Proper
Application of RICO," Catholic University Law Review,
42:579-613.
-
Schenck v. United States.
249 U.S.47 (1919).
-
S.C. . 1104.
Claire Johnson, Barbara
Webster, and Edward Connors are senior researchers with
the Institute for Law and Justice, Alexandria, Virginia.
This research was funded by NIJ grant 91-IJ-CX-K006. Findings
and conclusions are those of the authors, and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Selected Recent NIJ Products
New NIJ Videotape Series:
Research in Progress NIJ's new Research in Progress videotape
series features well-known scholars describing current studies
and how they relate to existing criminal justice research.
Each 60-minute lecture is given before an audience of criminal
justice researchers, practitioners, and policymakers and
includes a question and answer segment. The tapes are ideal
for use in the classroom, training seminar, office, or home.
Five tapes in the series are now available in VHS format:
Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D.,
J. Erik Jonsson University Professor of Urban Systems and
Operations Research, H. John Heinz School III of Public
Policy Management, Carnegie Mellon University: Youth Violence,
Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets, September 1994, NCJ 152235,
$19.00, includes postage and handling.
Peter W. Greenwood, Ph.D.,
Director, Criminal Justice Research Program, The RAND Corporation:
Three Strikes, Who's Out: Benefits and Costs of California's
New Mandatory-Sentencing Law, October 1994, NCJ 152236,
$19.00, includes postage and handling.
Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D.,
Director of the Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen:
Sentencing Policy and Crime Rates in Reunified Germany,
November 1994, NCJ 152237, $19.00, includes postage and
handling.
Arthur L. Kellerman, M.D.,
M.P.H., Director of the Center for Injury Control, School
of Public Health, and Assistant Professor in the Division
of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University:
Understanding and Preventing Violence: A Public Health Perspective,
December 1994, NCJ 152238, $19.00, includes postage and
handling.
James, Inciardi, Ph.D.,
Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University
of Delaware. A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective
Drug Abuse Treatment, January 1995, NCJ 152692, $19.00,
includes postage and handling.
Gangs
Block, Carolyn Rebecca,
and Richard Block, Street Gang Crime in Chicago, NIJ Research
in Brief, December 1993, NCJ 144782.
Conly, Catherine, P. Kelly,
P. Mahanna, and L. Warner, Street Gangs: Current Knowledge
and Strategies, Issues and Practices, July 1993, NCJ
143290.
Curry, G. David, Richard
A. Ball, and Robert J. Fox, Gang Crime and Law Enforcement
Record keeping, NIJ Research in Brief, August 1994, NCJ
148345.
Drugs and Youth Gangs,
NIJ Crime File Videotape, 1990, NCJ 123674, $17.00 plus
postage and handling.
Weapons
Roth, Jeffrey A., Firearms
and Violence, NIJ Research in Brief, February 1994, NCJ
145645. Sheley, Joseph F., Ph.D., and James D. Wright, Gun
Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples,
NIJ Research in Brief (published jointly with the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), December
1993, NCJ 145326.
Sheley, Joseph F., Ph.D.,
Zina T. McGee, Ph.D., and James D. Wright, Ph.D., Weapon-Related
Victimization in Selected Inner-City High School Samples,
NIJ Research Report, February 1995, NCJ 151526. (A two-page
summary with the same title, an NIJ Update, is also available.)
Sherman, Lawrence W., James
W. Shaw, and Dennis P. Rogan, The Kansas City Gun Experiment,
NIJ Research in Brief, January 1995, NCJ 150855. (A two-page
summary with the same title, an NIJ Update, is also available.)
Violence
DeJong, William, Building
the Peace: The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP),
Program Focus, November 1994, NCJ 149549.
Earls, Felton J., M.D.,
and Albert Reiss, Jr., Ph.D., Breaking the Cycle: Predicting
and Preventing Crime, NIJ Research Report, December 1994,
NCJ 140541.
PAVNET--Partnerships Against
Violence Network-- coalition of 6 Federal agencies and more
than 30 Federal clearinghouses, PAVNET Resource Guide, Promising
Programs, volume 1, January 1995, NCJ 150044, $17.00, includes
postage and handling.
PAVNET--Partnerships Against
Violence Network--a coalition of 6 Federal agencies and
more than 30 Federal clearinghouses, PAVNET Resource Guide,
Information Sources, Funding, and Technical Assistance,
volume 2, January 1995, NCJ 150045, $12.00, includes postage
and handling.
PAVNET Resource Guide, volumes
1 and 2, NCJ 152422, $25.00, includes postage and handling.
PAVNET Online User's Guide, a guide to accessing and using
PAVNET on the Internet, February 1995, NCJ 152057.
PAVNET on ASCII Diskette
(all PAVNET data in ASCII), one 3 1/2" high-density
diskette, January 1995,DD 152403, $16.00, includes postage
and handling.
PAVNET on WordPerfect Diskette
(all PAVNET data in WordPerfect 5.1), two 3 1/2" high-density
diskettes, January 1995, DD 152402, $16.00, includes postage
and handling.
Preventing Interpersonal
Violence Among Youths, NIJ Update, October 1994.
Roth, Jeffrey A., Understanding
and Preventing Violence, NIJ Research in Brief, February
1994, NCJ 145645.
TV and Violence, NIJ Crime
File Videotape, 1984, NCJ 097234, $17.00 plus postage and
handling.
