- Increase In Sentences For Adults Who Recruit Juveniles
- Expansion Of The List Of Aggravating Factors
- Requiring Community Custody For Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm
- Making Subsequent Convictions Of Malicious Mischief 3 A Gross Misdemeanor Offense
- Civil Cause Of Action For Graffiti And Tagging
- Criminal Street Gang Definition
Something to note with regards to the question of WHO contributed to this bill is that every one of the sponsors of this in the Washington state senate was white. The sponsors included no people of color and nobody youthful. Additionally, most commentators who supported the bill were also white. This is indicative of some organizational inequity which denies people of color and low-income people from having an active role in shaping the laws that will undoubtedly end up affecting them, especially in this case, negatively. There is another heading, entitled "PART VI STUDY ON BEST PRACTICES TO REDUCE GANG INVOLVEMENT WHILE INCARCERATED: The department shall study and establish best practices to reduce gang involvement and recruitment among incarcerated offenders." This begs the question of who is it who will be doing this study? Will it include people of color or low-income? Who gets to determine what the "best practices" are...and how? This seems like a monumentally difficult and long-term task, to say the least. And perhaps it could lead to conclusions about race and socioeconomic status being predominant causes of gang involvement and recruitment. In addition, some of the language of the bill is worthy of note. The following is a direct quote from the bill concerning the last point on the above list, Criminal Street Gang Definition:
"Criminal street gang" means any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol,having as one of its primary activities the commission of criminal acts, and whose members or associates individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal street gang activity. This definition does not apply to employees engaged in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, or to the activities of labor and bona fide nonprofit organizations or their members or agents.
This language is somewhat vague and a lot of the terms are subjective and open to interpretation and variable definitions. "A group of three or more persons" seems very broad and applicable to all sorts of scenarios. Also, subjective determination "having a common name or common unifying sign or symbol" may open the door to discriminatory distinctions. Something like a religious or spiritual symbol that certain ethnic groups share could be misconstrued as a unifying gang membership identifier. Perhaps the color of people's skin could be enough of an identifier to attract the attention of the law. This may pave the way for procedural inequity; racial profiling attributes suspicion and guilt to someone based on skin color or ethnic association. Therefore, certain people could be denied due process of law and will not be considered innocent until proven guilty. Their skin color would be enough to get them accused.
Seattle Weekly published an article (here) about the bill and various responses. According to their report, Larry Gossett, NAACP councilman characterized the bill as "a bill heavy on punitive provisions, light on social programs, and ripe for abuse, particularly in the form of racial profiling". This article also tells how other leaders for people of color groups recognize some significant problems with this bill that could affect civil rights groups already:
Meanwhile, the predominantly white and wealthy lawmakers see it as a bill with "collaborative origins, civil liberties protections, and holistic nature, emphasizing its commitment to social programs". According to one of the sponsors, "The bill is intended to be a multipronged tool to reduce the gang activity and violence that many smaller municipalities—particularly in the Yakima Valley—describe as increasingly problematic." The fact that this statement particularly mentions the Yakima Valley (which is characterized by a high percentage of latino people), indicates this bill's potential to increase geographical inequity. People of color and low-income communities are already seen as "problematic" and will probably be more likely to be subjected to this law: It will not be applied equally to all neighborhoods and regions in the state.
The bill's critics question its constitutionality and potential for abuse, with Seattle/King County NAACP President James Bible wondering whether it could have been used to effectively outlaw the Black Panther Party and calling it "a constitutional violation in the making."
Meanwhile, the predominantly white and wealthy lawmakers see it as a bill with "collaborative origins, civil liberties protections, and holistic nature, emphasizing its commitment to social programs". According to one of the sponsors, "The bill is intended to be a multipronged tool to reduce the gang activity and violence that many smaller municipalities—particularly in the Yakima Valley—describe as increasingly problematic." The fact that this statement particularly mentions the Yakima Valley (which is characterized by a high percentage of latino people), indicates this bill's potential to increase geographical inequity. People of color and low-income communities are already seen as "problematic" and will probably be more likely to be subjected to this law: It will not be applied equally to all neighborhoods and regions in the state.
One blog speaks to the problems with Washington gang legislature and clearly lays out the following problems:
- Legitimizes racial profiling
- Falsely stereotypes common culturally-relevant non-violent behaviors as gang-related
- Is all about increasing arrests and harsher punishments
- Fails to address or even acknowledge the racism and poverty that put youth at risk for gang involvement
- Lacks any focus whatsoever on recovery ad prevention support for youth at risk
These problems are indicative of a tradition in dealing with sociological "problems" in which the symptoms of the problem are criminalized without any attention to the deeper, racist and discriminatory practices and laws that lead to being "at risk" for gang activity. A more preventative approach would not only serve to decrease gang-related activity, but will also address the roots of other problems such as poverty and poor education. However, the bill as is only treats the one symptom while ignoring the pathogens.
