Oakland Gang Injunction Approved: Opt-out clause added to proposal
Oakland Police by Thomas Hawlk,http://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/95254540/
Amidst significant opposition, an Alameda County judge said Thursday he plans to approve City Attorney John Russo’s proposal to institute the city’s first gang injunction in North Oakland - paving the way for up to 12 more injunctions the city intends to propose in the near future.
In Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Robert Freedom stated the prosecution’s amended proposal established the need for the gang injunction and adequately addressed the concerns raised by the ACLU, the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and other friends of the court.
Judge Freedman did not issue the order Thursday, however, said he considers the city attorney’s proposal “under submission,” and pending edits to some specific language in the order, an official decision is expected in the coming weeks.
Key components of the amended order include an ACLU inspired expedited opt-out clause, which will give individuals bound by the impending injunction an opportunity to remove themselves through court hearings, and a concession on the part of the state in which they have agreed to return to court each time they intend to add individuals to the injunction.
Deputy City Attorney Rocio Fierro, who argued the case on behalf of the City Attorney’s Office, asked the court yesterday to schedule more dates, indicating there are more individuals they intend to bind to the injunction.
Currently, 15 individuals the city attorney claims are members of the North Side Oakland Gang are named in the injunction.
A number of attorneys representing "the people" and individuals currently named on the complaint attempted Thursday to challenge the injunction’s constitutionality.
An attorney speaking on behalf of Yancie Young argued the city still has not proven the existence of the North Side Oakland Gang. She also submitted a 30-page document to the court, which challenges the constitutionality of the injunction.
“The answer to Oakland’s gang problem is not segregation and not second class citizenship for alleged gang members,” Young said.
However, Judge Freedman made clear his opinion is the “city attorney’s proposal satisfies the threshold of convincing evidence” and asked for specific details with which attorneys took issue.
A concern raised by ALCU Racial Justice Project Director Diana Vermeire concerned the clause that prevents two or more persons named in the injunction from being together with in the proposed safety zone. She argued that exceptions be made for persons going to municipal buildings, attempting to get social services and noted that it prevents individuals from gathering for political meetings.
In response, Fierro said the proposal was a preliminary injunction, subject to revision, and also said the city attorney’s office welcomes input from concerned parties.
Vermeire said the ALCU intends to follow the implementation of the injunction and will monitor future developments.
City Attorney Communications Director Alex Katz said the injunction would go into affect after the judge issues his decision and individuals named on it will be bound after they have been served notification of their inclusion.
Story Features
Environment
Food
Daily Image
Recent comments
Development
Identity
Arts & Education
Join Our Mailing List
Sign up for Oakland freebies, discounts & exclusive stories 2X a month.
Pro bono web design grant provided by TechScouts
I grew up in LA, most of the time in South LA, interacting daily with gang members and gang politics. When I moved to Oakland as a teenager I was surprised to find that while there was drug traffic, there was no gang culture.
All the typical neighborhood characters were on the corners, and there was inter-turf violence in East/West/North Oakland 10 years ago. However, "gangs" in the true sense of the word were no where.
Gang's can be defined by their ability to inspire participation without payment. Turf wars revolve around real dealers making real money and protecting their income streams. Gangs, on the other hand, recruit large numbers of "unpaid interns", young men and women to work very hard and take big risks for prestige and a later undefined promotion opportunity.
This culture is why injunctions are counter productive. Just as those murdered in gang wars become martyrs, those listed on injunctions become celebrities - not only are they ranking gang members, they are so important that the city has taken the time to single them out for their criminal escapades.
In Los Angeles when we had an injunction, we got "Injunction Boys," a new stratum on the gang member hierarchy who were worshiped and emulated. Gang members competed for the title and escalated their criminal activity in order to be included on the rolls of the injunction.
For this reason, from this experience, I know injunctions are not the answer.
The gang problem in Oakland is relatively new, it has not penetrated multiple generations, and we still have the opportunity to prevent the type of deep seeded cultural despair which characterizes gang life in Los Angeles.
We can learn from the LA experience, injunctions and gang units only validate gangs; they serve to dramatize and popularize their wars with each other and the police. Instead we must decrease the incentives to participate in the drug economy, while simultaneously offering good paying alternatives, we must also build a community culture of distain, rather than awe, around gang members, and finally the legal system needs to address them for what they are: childish and petty criminals, not crime lords, take their bragging rights - really, its the only thing they have worth fighting for.