7B

Driving Down the Drive-By’s:

Toward a Greater Police Presence

in the Gang-Infested Northeast San Fernando Valley

A Position Paper

Jointly Composed by

San Fernando High School’s (B-Track)

Honors Advanced Composition Class

January 10, 2007

(1)Achieving academic successin order to make something of oneself is a goal routinely urged upon teenagers. For those in communities where crime rates are low, realizing such an ambition might merely mean one has to study hard. Adolescents who live in places where crime is rampant, however, face such difficult circumstances that the progress of many is often severely impeded. In the Northeast San Fernando Valley, gang violence has become a deadly scourge that deprives many youthful residents of the opportunity to meaningfully better their lives. A number of proposals for dealing with this problem have been put forward. One that has gained an unexpected measure of legitimacy,in part because of the status of those who recommend it, is the legalization of drugs. As this paper will show, this idea will do little if anything to solve the problem of gang violence, and will likely only increase the suffering experienced by those who live in crime-ridden neighborhoods. A proposal that we believe would prove truly efficacious is that of substantially increasing the number of police officers in this part of the city.

Horror in the ‘Hood

(2) In attempting to quantify and qualify the seriousness of gang violence in our community, each of the members of our Advanced Composition class submitted anecdotes describing personal tragedies they have suffered on account of it. The following is typical of the thirty or so that were collected. (see Appendix 1 for others)

During the Thanksgiving holiday four years ago, all of my family was in our apartment just relaxing and enjoying our free time together. Our parents weren’t working and we kids didn’t have to go to school. On one of these days, my mom cooked up some ceviche (a crab dish marinated with acidic juices along with onions and other ingredients). Everything was so peaceful and tranquil. At length, my oldest brother wanted to take some leftovers to his girlfriend. I remember my dad asking him if he wanted a ride, but he said he preferred to walk. A couple of minutes later, my parents heard a gun shot, and my mother instantly had a strong feeling in her heart that something was not right. She and my Dad rushed outside to find out what happened, only to see my brother being strapped onto a gurney and lifted into an ambulance. The police wouldn’t let my parents near him, so they had to rely on the details provided by “la loca”, a thirty-year old junkie who had apparently comforted my brother and called the police. Although my brother was a gangster, he was not the intended target of the drive-by shooting that injured him. As such, he was just another one of the hundreds of innocent victims in this area who are killed or injured because they get caught in the middle of wars over drugs, territory, and revenge. (Jasmine Adame)

(3)Generally speaking, violent crime in LA has been decreasing in the last couple of years -- it’s down about 8% from last year (LA Times, Jan 2 2007) -- but gang violence has spiked during that time. (Olney, 2007) In the San Fernando Valley, gang-related crime has increased by an incredible 42% for a total of 1203 incidents over last year’s total of 860. (Los Angeles Times, Nov 22, 2006) This isn’t to suggest that things were especially peaceful before this spike, however. Between 1998 and 2004, there were 7300 deaths in California resulting from gang violence. (Triplett, p. 2) In 2004 alone, 57% (or 291) of LA’s homicides were gang-related, which is a 12.4% increase over the percentage of such murders committed the previous year (fastennetwork.org). Making these figures even more tragic is the fact that one-third of these killings were of innocent people whose median age was only 21. (ibid.) In the face of such data, LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa described his city as “the epicenter of the nation’s gang crisis.” (LA Times, Jan 2, 2007) One notable student of gang violence, the well known civil rights attorney Connie Rice, went even farther, suggesting that “LA is the gang capital of the world.” (Olney, 2007)

(4)It’s not hard to understand how this level of violence occurs when one considers how many gangsters there are in this area. In 2003, LA County’s sheriff estimated that there were 96,000 gangsters in his jurisdiction, and that they commit half of all violent offenses each year. (Los Angeles Daily News, Nov. 24, 2003, p. N4) Clearly, the problem is widespread and well entrenched. So, at least, says Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Chief William Bratton, who was hired after successfully fighting the gang problem in New York City. In his opinion, there is a “celebration of the culture of violence here”, and “a climate of fear pervades much of Southern California.” (Long Beach Press-Telegram)

(5)With respect to our immediate area, San Fernando High School (SFHS) Police Officer GillRea echoed Bratton’s assessment in a recent interview. According to him, “the problem of gang violence is really serious in that it is a part of the culture of this part of the Valley.” He contends that “just about every student is affiliated with gang members because almost every person knows at least one.” This observation was confirmed in a survey of 339 SFHS students conducted by our class in August, 2006 (see Appendix 2). On a scale of 1 – 10, the average rating respondents gave regarding the seriousness of gang violence in this community was ‘7’, which means they consider it to be quite a danger. 261 (77%) of our respondents said they personally know someone who belongs to a gang: the average number of gangsters these respondents claim to know being 14. Officer Rea’s testimony supports these findings. He reported that 2 people are arrested every day at school for gang-related activities, and that many more citations are issued for the same reason.

(6)These numbers should be cause for concern for a number of reasons. First of all, many people are being hurt. 80of our survey respondents reported being personally victimized by gangs, and another 219 said a friend or relative of theirs has been thus mistreated. When asked to specify the nature of the victimization, 79 reported being jumped; 52 reported being shot; 28 reported being robbed; 23 reported being threatened with a weapon; 23 reported knowing of a fatal attack; 15 reported being stabbed; 9 reported that their property had been vandalized; and 7 reported being sexually assaulted.

One respondent wrote, “My friend was shot to death by gang members. They confused him with a gangster.”

(7)A second reason for concern goes back to what Bratton and Rea said about a climate of fear. Responses from our survey takers indicate that lifestyles are clearly restricted because of safety concerns. On a scale of 1 – 10, the average rating of our 339 respondents regarding the extent to which their activities outside of school are affected by the presence of gangsters in their community was 5, which means they are significantly restricted. 125 respondents (about one-third) said gang activity makes them fearful of going out at night. One respondent wrote, “My dad was threatened by [gangsters]. They told him that if he walked out of his house, they would kill him.” Another reported, “Our neighbors across the street have tried to shoot at us and have claimed our street.” Many others confessed that they’re reluctant to travel to other neighborhoods. The following anecdote provided by another of our class members gives a clearer picture of this situation.

My aunt lives on the same street where there is a high amount of gang activity. Indeed, one gang has even claimed the street. A couple of years ago, she and her family had to endure the sight of a neighbor lying in the street dying. One night, my brother went over to my aunt’s house as he did most nights, when he and my aunt’s family suddenly heard gunshots. They ducked for cover, and, luckily, none of them were struck. Sadly, however, someone outside wasn’t so fortunate. While a bald-headed teenager was talking to a neighbor, a white car drove by and fired shots. One of the bullets found its way into the young man’s skull. It was a gruesome sight. While making a report to the police, my aunt insisted that she be allowed to see the corpse; otherwise, she said, she would have nightmares imagining it. My brother informed me that the police officer discovered that the suspects fired at a person they mistakenly thought was a gang member. Understanding that if one innocent person could lose his life in this way that another could do so just as easily, my aunt is now afraid to step outside her house at night. Moreover, after hearing about this horrific incident, many of her closest friends and relatives are hesitant to come over, even for a brief visit. (Alejandro Soriano)

(8)A third cause for concern pertains to the effect that gang activity –and even the mere presence of gangsters – has on academic performance. 140 out of 339 (41%) respondents said the presence of gangsters in the classroom negatively affects how well students do. One complained, “Gangsters are dead weight in our school. All [they] do is fool around and make stupid comments in class.” Another revealed, “I take hard classes so there won’t be any gangsters in them.” 49 respondents said that they’re a distraction, and dozens more said they intimidate students who are fearful of them. Of these, many said gangsters corrupt their non-gangster classmates who look up to them, and that students with questions or contributions stay quiet because they don’t want gangsters to think they’re “school boys”. One lamented that gangsters “tend to bring down the positive atmosphere of accomplishing dreams and goals,” while several others resent the fact that teachers can’t teach because gangsters are disruptive since they don’t want to learn. When they do at least care about their grades, they threaten others to do their homework or let them copy, according to a number of respondents.

(9)Returning to the idea that gang culture is deeply embedded in this community, something that reflects both the seriousness of this problem and hints at what perpetuates it is the fact that a number of local adult role models are current or former gangsters who encourage the young to follow in their footsteps. This is true even when those they advise are their own children, as is confirmed in this excerpt of an interview conducted by one of our class members of a SFHS student who became a gangster at the age of 14 (see Appendix 3)

Why did you choose the gang life?

Because all of my family bangs and that’s the lifestyle I grew up in.

Have your parents taken notice that you are involved in the gang life? If so, do they support you?

Hell, yeah. My parents know. Them fools are gang members too. My mom only told me a little bit of times that the gang life was not a good way to go. When I did join, she didn’t tell me anything. How can she if she also bangs? (Alma Jimenez)

A former gangster named Mario Corona (AKA “Big Spider”), who is now working for an organization dedicated to helping gangsters find a way to turn their lives around, visited our class and revealed that, when he was a boy, his aunts and uncles fullyexpected that he’d get locked up someday and accordingly gave him advice he never asked for about how to survive in jail. (see Appendix 3) The significance of the influence gangster families have on their members is attested by expert opinion. One student of gang activity, Lisa Wolff, found that many young gangsters come from gangster families because they witness and sometimes participate in gang activity. (Wolff, 2000)

The Wrong Prescription

(10)Having demonstrated that gang violence is indeed a serious problem, especially in the East Valley area, the question obviously becomes what should be done to address it? One suggestion is to legalize narcotics. While most people would reject such an unorthodox proposal out of hand, there are a number of prominent and highly respected thinkers who enthusiastically endorse it. One is William F. Buckley, publisher of The New Republic magazine and influential conservative philosopher. Another is the late Nobel-Prize-winning economist and former University of Chicago professor Milton Friedman. A third is Richard Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico. In a televised debate with Congressman Charles Rangel (D – NY), Mr. Buckley put forward the following arguments in support of his position. (MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Dec 8, 1993)

(11)One is that legalizing narcotics would reduce crime, especially organized crime, because it would supposedly eliminate the black market for such products, without which criminals presumably can’t sustain themselves. If drugs were legalized, Buckley, et al.contend, they would be available at major retail outlets, which would compete against each other, such that the drugs would be available at a lower price. Proponents point out that unlike the competition between gangsters, there wouldn’t be any shoot-outs between adversaries like Rite-Aid and Payless Drugs. Moreover, the combination of lower prices and a safe shopping environment would prove too great an advantage for gangsters to successfully compete, it is argued. Crime would also supposedly decrease because addicts wouldn’t have to break the law in order to afford the drugs they crave since they’ll be so much less expensive.

(12)Proponents also recommend this policy in the belief that it would save taxpayers a lot of money. With turf battles no longer taking place, people like Buckley and Friedman argue, the cost of enforcing laws and imprisoning those who break them would decrease dramatically. In addition, they contend that taxes for law-abiding citizens could be reduced even further if the government imposed so-called “sin taxes” on whatever drugs were sold. An attractive alternative, they maintain, would be to use such monies for the construction and maintenance of worthy public projects like hospitals and schools.

(13)With further respect to the issue of money, proponents complain that the 30-year “War on Drugs” is incredibly expensive and has been a notorious failure. They emphasize the fact that the US currently spends $25 billion per year fighting drug use, and that the rate of illegal narcotic abuse continues to increase. They explain that such increases are due in part to continually rising numbers of new users. They also remind critics that the number of inmates convicted of drug offenses is at an all-time high.

(14)Another added benefit touted by supporters of legalization is that society would be less dangerous because drug companies would compete to produce a “safer” high. They point out that illegal drugs currently come without instruction sheets or warning labels, and that they are produced without any regulated quality control or manufacturer liability. Street heroin is often only 3-6% pure, and the percentage of actual cocaine in the typical sample is regularly only 10-15%, according to legalization advocates. If drug use was decriminalized, they argue, sales would be regulated just as they are for any other product, and the problem of impurities would be eliminated.

(15)Judging from Buckley’s comments, legalization advocates are obviously aware of how objectionable most law-abiding members of society would find their proposal. They appreciate the fact that most of those who disagree with them do so in the belief that legalization will result in an increase in the number of people who want to get high. They counter this criticism by pointing out that there wasn’t much of an increase in the number of people who started drinking after Prohibition was lifted in the 1930s. They also remind critics that many people choose not to smoke although it has always been legal.

(16)Unfortunately for legalization proponents, this attempted rebuttal rests upon a logical fallacy. One can’t rely upon the assurance that drug usage and addiction rates won’t increase if drugs are legalized just because there wasn’t a huge increase in the amount of alcohol consumed after Prohibition was lifted. This is because the vast majority of people are able to sample alcohol without becoming addicted to it, whereas it often takes only one hit of heroin or crack to establish an insatiable craving for it thereafter. For this reason, comparing alcohol and drug consumption is a false analogy. If one then assumes that chronic drug use will indeed increase, one must also accept that significantly higher rates of crime would be inevitable. While organized crime might be hurt by the legalization of drugs, and while it might be true that drug users may not have to commit crimes to get money to purchase drugs if there were legalized, there is another source of criminal activity that warrants equal consideration. This is the crime which is committed by people whose judgment is impaired by drugs. Moreover, it isn’t likely that black markets will disappear. Unless all drugs are made available to all people (including minors), there will still be restrictions on what drugs are available to what buyers. As long as such restrictions exist, there will be a black market to serve the needs of those who can’t make legal purchase. And it will exist because no one would ever sanction a proposal making drugs like methamphetamines and heroin available to minors.