Gangs in Chicago

NPR recently reported on new anti-gang policies in Chicago (listen/read here). The new policies approach gang violence in Chicago in two ways: by arraigning meetings between gang members on parole and community members and families of victims of gang violence, and by putting pressure on gangs that have at least one member suspected of violence. If one gang member is suspected of a violent crime, the police will arrest as many other members as possible on any other charge possible. The intent is to foster self-policing among gangs, a tactic reminiscent of punishing the whole class if one person cheats or making the entire soccer team run laps when one person mouths-off to the coach. Apparently, similar programs have been successfully implemented in Boston and Cincinnati.

When listening to the piece, I tried to think of how we would react to such a move if it had been done in Central America. Such a tactic would certainly be categorized as an "iron fist" approach to crime control, emphasizing punitive measures, punishment for wrongdoing. It is not exactly the same as rounding up young men solely based on their physical appearance (tattoos, etc.) or suspicion of gang membership, but it does lead to mass arrests. The first test of the new policy in Chicago led to the arrest of 60 gang members in the aftermath of a gang-related murder. My biggest questions have to do with where these petty charges come from and what happens to those arrested. Are the charges that weren't acted on earlier because they were too small? Are those arrested actually suspected, individually, of committing these petty crimes, or are they arrested solely for being members of a gang that commits these offenses? Are those getting arrested actually sentenced for these small crimes? During the Mano Dura and Super Mano Dura days in El Salvador, the majority of those arrested on suspicion of gang membership were released due to lack of evidence. Does this new policy in Chicago mean that the only evidence needed to arrest someone is membership in a gang, as long as they suspect someone in the gang to have committed a crime? What kind of evidence is needed to charge these gang members with these smaller crimes?

These new measures in Chicago take the opposite approach of zero-tolerance policies made famous in New York. Zero-tolerance tactics spring from the "broken window" theory, that by cleaning high-crime areas (e.g.fixing broken windows, cleaning up graffiti) and arresting people for small, petty crimes, we can prevent more serious, violent crimes from occurring. These new policies are attempting to reduce serious, violent crime by punishing small, petty crimes after a serious crime has already been committed. That is, punish gangs for petty offenses in retaliation for a more serious crime in the hope that it will prevent future violence. It abandons the link between petty crime and serious crime implicit in zero-tolerance policies and takes up the logic that gangs will stop members from committing serious crimes for fear that everyone might be picked up for something small. They aim for the same end result, but get there on different paths.

This is, of course, a controversial policy. NPR quotes the head of a faith-based group dedicated to rehabilitation and outreach for at-risk youth, who argues that using the stick without offering some sort of carrot (or if not a carrot at least some alternative) doesn't really take care of the problem. The governor of Illinois worries that because the new policies includes meetings between the gangs and the superintendent of police, it only gives more status, more legitimacy, to gangs. Interestingly, I read similar complaints in newspaper editorials and on internet forums in El Salvador after the public transportation strike in September this year. Street gangs held their own press conferences with local media outlets following the passage of new anti-gang legislation that made gangs illegal, and some criticized the media coverage of these press conferences for giving legitimacy and prestige to gangs. Could this lead to status seeking among gangs?

Finally, I am unsure about the impact of meeting with family members of victims of gang violence. I haven't read any literature on this type of intervention (although I am sure it exists and intend to look into the secondary literature). Does exposing gang members (parolees in this case) to the sorrow of victims and the frustrations of community members make gangs less likely to commit violence? Or is this more a public relations tactic targeted more at the community than at the gangs, a way for the city to show that they are not only relying on punitive measures?  

I would be interested to know what people more well-informed that I am about anti-gang policy in Central America think about these new tactics in Chicago.