About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

14 Mich. J. Race & L. 285 (2008-2009)
The Unconstitutionality, Ineffectiveness, and Alternatives of Gang Injunctions

handle is hein.journals/mjrl14 and id is 289 raw text is: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, INEFFECTIVENESS, AND ALTERNATIVES OF GANG INJUNCTIONS Thomas A. Myers* Gang violence across America puts in jeopardy the peace and tranquility of neighborhoods. Cities are challenged to keep their communities safe from gang violence. One common way in which cities attempt to combat violent gang activity is by using gang injunctions. Gang injunctions are court orders that prohibit gang members from conducting already-illegal activities such as vandalism, loitering, and use or possession of illegal drugs or weapons within a defined area. These injunctions, however, also prohibit otherwise legal activity such as associating with others within the restricted area of the injunction, using words or hand gestures, and wearing certain clothing. The increased use of gang injunctions to combat violent gang activity is a controversial tactic. The use of gang injunctions raises many constitutional concerns, including violations of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments. Even if interpreted as constitutional, gang injunctions have been proven ineffective in preventing and deterring gang members from engaging in violent gang activity. Critics believe that gang injunctions create gang cohesiveness, animosity towards the police, and relocate the violent crime created by gang members by pushing gang members into adjacent neighborhoods just outside the injunction's target area. Finally, there are several proven-effective alternatives to gang injunctions. This Note explores the unconstitutionality of gang injunctions, reveals the ineffec- tiveness of gang injunctions, and investigates more effective and efficient alternatives. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 286 I. B ACKGROUND ....................................................................... 288 II. A NALYSIS .............................................................................. 290 A . Potential for A buse .................................................. 290 B. Burden No More Speech than Necessary to Serve a Significant Governmental Interest ........................................ 293 1. The Burden on Speech and Association .............. 294 2. Serving a Significant Governmental Interest- The Ineffectiveness of Gang Injunctions .............. 295 * Candidate for J.D.,Thomas M. Cooley Law School, May 2010. 1 am grateful to Professor Mark Dotson for his valuable insight and inspiration in writing about gang in- junctions; and to Professor Norman Plate for helping me discover my true passion for writing; and to Darryl Parsell for being a positive mentor to me; and to my Mom and Dad, Tony and Ali, Chris and Azadeh, Justin and Des, Stephanie and Sam, and Stephanie for their unconditional support of me; and finally, to the Michigan Journal of Race & Law for all of their hard work in the editing process of this Note.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most