Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has co-authored the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007, a bill designed to comprehensively address gang activity.
Feinstein's legislation provides more than $1 billion in funding for gang prevention, intervention and law enforcement programs over five years and establishes new crimes and tougher federal penalties to deter and punish members of street gangs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has already endorsed the bill.
Once viewed as a phenomenon of large urban cities, it is believed that 55 percent of municipalities with a population between 50,000 and 100,000 have a gang problem. Moreover, it is estimated there are 25,000 gangs comprising 750,000 members nationwide.
At first glance, the bill clearly attempts to draw the right balance between law enforcement and prevention. As so often is the case, the devil is in the details.
Peruse the list of endorsements -- it becomes quite apparent they all represent the law enforcement side of the legislation. I do believe there will be (assuming there are none, thus far) endorsements on the prevention side, especially since there is $500 million earmarked over five years for local schools, service providers, and community and faith leaders with demonstrated success in fighting gangs and addressing the root causes of poverty, a leading contributor to gang involvement.
In addition to the $500 million allocated for law enforcement, the bill offers wider latitude to combat gang activity. Many of the racketeering laws -- such as the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act -- that were designed to prosecute organized crime are included in this legislation. Specifically, this bill would extend the use of court-monitored wiretapping to gang-related activity.
The bill summary defines a street gang as: "a formal or informal group, club, organization or association of five or more persons who have committed three or more separate felony crimes -- including at least one serious violent felony -- within the past five years."
What is an informal group and who gets to decide? Given the expanded latitude this bill provides law enforcement, is it wise that they are granted such leniency in the area of subjective analysis?
I'm concerned that the "informal" designation could lead to law enforcement overreach, such as the federal government's ability to revoke constitutional rights by simply labeling individuals as "enemy combatants." Such vague definitions could catch innocent people in the vortex of injustice.
In 1995, Shareef Cousin was sentenced to death at the age of 16 for a crime he didn't commit. He served several years on death row in Louisiana's Angola prison before his conviction was overturned.
At the time of the murder, he was playing in a midnight basketball league designed to keep youths off the streets. A video recording of Cousin playing basketball included a wall clock that showed he was at the game at the time of the murder. He also had five witnesses testify that he was with them at the game.
As it is written, the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 would only require overzealous law officers to be paired with overzealous prosecutors to replicate the Shareef Cousin debacle.
Make no mistake, however, the lawlessness and witness intimidation associated with gang violence is real. It makes the job of law enforcement more difficult; many innocent people fear gang reprisal more than they believe the government can protect them. I am therefore pleased to see the bill would include money for witness protection.
But fear is one of our more primordial emotions that, while at times justified, can also lead to reactionary-based legislation. Unless Congress is ready to acknowledge that the only tool available is to follow the path of the war on terror and become more like the enemy it claims to abhor, it must craft legislation that honestly confronts fear but does not potentially threaten our democratic values.
If the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 fails to meet that dual criteria, it will be nothing more, if passed, than legislation that does more harm than good.
Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a message at (510) 208-6417.