I should also extend kudos to the general WaPo editorial board for cutting through the wheat and chaff and outlining the numerous flaws in the new Gang legislation that just passed the house:
THE HOUSE OF Representatives passed a bill last week designed to reduce gang violence. The so-called “Gangbusters” bill would greatly expand federal authority to prosecute gang members, even for local activity. It would establish mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for many crimes, including but not limited to newly defined offenses. These are terrible ideas that ought to be rejected if and when the Senate considers similar legislation.
The bill’s definition of gang activity represents an unwarranted federalization of local crime. Gang violence is a serious problem, and some gangs operate across state lines and require federal attention. But this law is written so broadly as to potentially include many local crimes, which are traditionally prosecuted by the states. Under its terms, anyone who commits or conspires in a “gang crime” — defined to include a wide range of drug and violent felonies — in order to further “the activities of a criminal street gang” or gain entrance to one can be prosecuted federally. A “criminal street gang” is defined as “a formal or informal group” of at least three people who commit two or more gang crimes. And the bill would require only the most tenuous connection to any legitimate federal interest before the matter could be handled by the Justice Department. In other words, just about any pattern of street violence involving people who wear the same tattoos could become a federal matter. The predominant state role in prosecuting street crime deserves more respect.
Read the whole thing. These knuckleheads in Washington think that they can do anything if they just say they are fighting ‘gangs.’ They need to be stopped- I know which gang is a bigger threat to me. And their colors aren’t red or blue, but pinstripe.
M. Scott Eiland
John, I understand why this might concern you–particularly if its main manifestation is a renewed spasm of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, but street gangs–particularly the big ones–are basically domestic terrorist organizations for which extortion, robbery and murder are ways of life. I don’t see why the feds shouldn’t be involved rather deeply in their eradication, whether they’re the Crypts in LA or some racist skinhead biker gang in Montana. If the feds start going after the local bridge club for allowing penny-a-point Chicago games, I might see a problem here.
Libertine
John…
It is just like terrorism. The Prez utters the word terrorism or 9/11 and Americans cheer and wave flags as our civil liberties are curtailed.
I guess they would give it a try with gangs. I am surprised they didn’t call gangs “American Urban Terror Cells”. The public would be clamoring for even harsher mandatory minimums.
I swear most of America has it’s collective brain idling in neutral…Mandatory minimums and federalizing of state crimes do not cut down on crime, it just fills up our overcrowded prisons.
Justin Faulkner
Mandatory minimums are a bad idea, period. Always have been. But this is *way* off the reservation. Do the sponsors of this bill have no sense of vertical equity?