Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Recommendations for implementingLos Angeles-style gang suppression in          Wa s h i n g t o n , D C
Los Angeles County, 2005   4 California counties, 2011      5% - 10%                        12.4%
Community residents felt less afraid and intimidatedLess visible gang activity and graffitiPotential greater sense of n...
Robbery: $10,400                 Assault: $12,200     x        66                      x        210         $686,400      ...
People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna, 1997Chicago v. Morales, 1999Solution to civil rights concerns: careful wordingLimi...
Given the success rate and cost effectiveness it isrecommended that policymakers in the Washington, DCmetropolitan area c...
Mark A. Cohen, “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice,” CriminalJustice 2000, Vol. 4. National Institute ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Civil Gang Injunctions

684 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Civil Gang Injunctions

  1. 1. Recommendations for implementingLos Angeles-style gang suppression in Wa s h i n g t o n , D C
  2. 2. Los Angeles County, 2005 4 California counties, 2011 5% - 10% 12.4%
  3. 3. Community residents felt less afraid and intimidatedLess visible gang activity and graffitiPotential greater sense of neighborhood ownershipStronger relationships with law enforcement
  4. 4. Robbery: $10,400 Assault: $12,200 x 66 x 210 $686,400 + $2,562,000 = $3.2+ million saved by CGIs
  5. 5. People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna, 1997Chicago v. Morales, 1999Solution to civil rights concerns: careful wordingLimiting negative impacts on the personal developmentof gang-involved youth
  6. 6. Given the success rate and cost effectiveness it isrecommended that policymakers in the Washington, DCmetropolitan area consider utilizing this tool for gangviolence suppression.Precision and collaboration that are necessary to carryout CGIs effectivelyKeep in mind the social wellbeing and development ofgang members who would be served with said injunctions
  7. 7. Mark A. Cohen, “Measuring the Costs and Benefits of Crime and Justice,” CriminalJustice 2000, Vol. 4. National Institute of Justice, NCJ 182411. Available fromhttp://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdfJeffrey Grogger, “What We Know About Gang Injunctions,” Criminology and PublicPolicy, Vol. 4, No. 1 (February 2005), pp. 637-642.Cheryl L. Maxson, et al., “For the Sake of the Neighborhood? Civil Gang Injunctions asa Gang Invervention Tool in Southern California,” Ed. Scott H. Decker, Policing Gangsand Violence, 1st edition, pp. 239-263. Rpt. In The Modern Gang Reader, 3rd edition,New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 394-406.Matthew ODeane, Gang Injunctions and Abatement: Using Civil Remedies to CurbGang Related Crimes, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2011Matthew O’Deane & Stephen Morreale, “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of GangInjunctions in California,” The Journal of Criminal Justice Research, Vol. 2, No. 1

×