There is a phrase that’s well-known south of the border: “Pan, o palo.” Or, in English: “Bread or stick.”
And this, in turn, comes down to: Do as I say and you’ll get this nice reward. Disobey me and you’ll get your head bashed in.
According to the FBI’s website, “some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs are criminally active in the U.S. today.
“Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking, and fraud. Many gang members continue to commit crimes even after being sent to jail.”
Gangs are responsible for an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90% in others.
FBI seal
These gangs aren’t going to disappear, no matter how many of their members die or wind up in prison.
For decades, the rhetoric of the Cold War has carried over into the debate over policing. “Hawks” on the Right have demanded a “hard” approach to law enforcement, emphasizing punishment. “Doves” on the Left have pursued a “soft” line, stressing social programs and rehabilitation.
But it isn’t enough to be “hard” or “soft” in pursuing the goal of a safe, law-abiding society. It’s necessary to be “smart” above all.
If you can’t eradicate evil, then you should try to direct at least some of its elements into a safer path.
So it’s clearly time for an innovative approach to gangbusting.
Instead of merely using “the stick,” state and federal governments should use a combination of rewards and punishments to reduce gang membership and protect innocent citizens who are often the victims of gangland violence.
Each state should invite its resident gang members to take part in a series of competition for the title of “State Gang Champion.” These would be modeled on competitions now existing within the National Football League—a series of playoffs to determine which two gangs will duke it out in the “Super Rumble.”
These competitions would be completely voluntary, thus eliminating any charges of State coercion. They would be modeled on the country’s current mania for “Ultimate Warrior” contests for kickboxers and bare-knuckled fighters.
Contestants—from at least 10 opposing gangs—would meet in a football-sized arena.
No firearms would be allowed, thus ensuring safety for spectators. Contestants could otherwise arm themselves with whatever weapons they desired—such as baseball bats, swords, axes, spears or chains.
Everyone who agreed to participate would automatically be guaranteed full immunity for whatever carnage they inflicted.
The object of these contests would be to officially determine which State gang was the “baddest” for the year. Tickets could be purchased by fans looking for an afternoon’s festival of gore.
Television networks could—-and no doubt would—vie for rights to film the events, just as they now do for streaming wrestling or boxing matches.
So why would hardcore gangs even consider participating in such a series of contests?
L.A. gang
For a multitude of reasons.
First, they would be able to eliminate members of rival gangs without risk of prosecution and imprisonment.
Second, they would be able to gauge—through the heat of combat—the toughness of their enemies and their own members.
Third, they would gain at least temporary stardom—just as successful gladiators did under the Roman Empire and winning football quarterbacks do today.
Fourth, the winning gang would gain official status as “The Baddest” gang in the State for that year.
On this last point: Napoleon Bonaparte created the Order of the Legion of Honor, distributed 15,000 crosses to his soldiers and called his troops the “Grand Army.” When someone criticized him for giving “toys” to his war-hardened veterans, Napoleon replied: “Men are ruled by toys.”
And for the State there would be gains as well.
First, these contests would literally eliminate a great many gang members who could not be removed any other way.
Second, police and prosecutors could concentrate their limited resources on gangs that refused to participate and/or were deemed to pose the greatest threat.
Third, millions of dollars in State revenues would be generated through ticket sales and the buying of streaming rights.
Fourth, for Republican politicians, there would be an added bonus: Their constituents would find this an especially attractive way to fight crime because it would adhere to the two concepts most precious to Right-wingers: Killing people and making money.
Admittedly, many law-abiding citizens would be repulsed by the carnage that would result from implementing this proposal. But these are generally the people who disdain boxing or wrestling contests anyway.
Given our increasingly jaded and violence-prone society, however, even most of these people would eventually tolerate these contests as an effective way to simultaneously raise badly-needed tax revenues and reduce the size of criminal gangs.
In short: With sufficient creativity and ruthlessness, it should be possible to reclaim control of our streets from the evils of gang violence.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog
ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, FBI, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, FOOTBALL, GANG VIOLENCE, GANGS, GLADIATORS, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HUFFINGTON POST, LEGION OF HONOR, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NAPOLEON BONAPARTE, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, ROMAN EMPIRE, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TAX REVENUES, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, X
AN ORIGINAL APPROACH TO GANGBUSTING
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on March 13, 2024 at 12:10 amThere is a phrase that’s well-known south of the border: “Pan, o palo.” Or, in English: “Bread or stick.”
And this, in turn, comes down to: Do as I say and you’ll get this nice reward. Disobey me and you’ll get your head bashed in.
According to the FBI’s website, “some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs are criminally active in the U.S. today.
“Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, prostitution and human trafficking, and fraud. Many gang members continue to commit crimes even after being sent to jail.”
Gangs are responsible for an average of 48% of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90% in others.
FBI seal
These gangs aren’t going to disappear, no matter how many of their members die or wind up in prison.
For decades, the rhetoric of the Cold War has carried over into the debate over policing. “Hawks” on the Right have demanded a “hard” approach to law enforcement, emphasizing punishment. “Doves” on the Left have pursued a “soft” line, stressing social programs and rehabilitation.
But it isn’t enough to be “hard” or “soft” in pursuing the goal of a safe, law-abiding society. It’s necessary to be “smart” above all.
If you can’t eradicate evil, then you should try to direct at least some of its elements into a safer path.
So it’s clearly time for an innovative approach to gangbusting.
Instead of merely using “the stick,” state and federal governments should use a combination of rewards and punishments to reduce gang membership and protect innocent citizens who are often the victims of gangland violence.
Each state should invite its resident gang members to take part in a series of competition for the title of “State Gang Champion.” These would be modeled on competitions now existing within the National Football League—a series of playoffs to determine which two gangs will duke it out in the “Super Rumble.”
These competitions would be completely voluntary, thus eliminating any charges of State coercion. They would be modeled on the country’s current mania for “Ultimate Warrior” contests for kickboxers and bare-knuckled fighters.
Contestants—from at least 10 opposing gangs—would meet in a football-sized arena.
No firearms would be allowed, thus ensuring safety for spectators. Contestants could otherwise arm themselves with whatever weapons they desired—such as baseball bats, swords, axes, spears or chains.
Everyone who agreed to participate would automatically be guaranteed full immunity for whatever carnage they inflicted.
The object of these contests would be to officially determine which State gang was the “baddest” for the year. Tickets could be purchased by fans looking for an afternoon’s festival of gore.
Television networks could—-and no doubt would—vie for rights to film the events, just as they now do for streaming wrestling or boxing matches.
So why would hardcore gangs even consider participating in such a series of contests?
L.A. gang
For a multitude of reasons.
First, they would be able to eliminate members of rival gangs without risk of prosecution and imprisonment.
Second, they would be able to gauge—through the heat of combat—the toughness of their enemies and their own members.
Third, they would gain at least temporary stardom—just as successful gladiators did under the Roman Empire and winning football quarterbacks do today.
Fourth, the winning gang would gain official status as “The Baddest” gang in the State for that year.
On this last point: Napoleon Bonaparte created the Order of the Legion of Honor, distributed 15,000 crosses to his soldiers and called his troops the “Grand Army.” When someone criticized him for giving “toys” to his war-hardened veterans, Napoleon replied: “Men are ruled by toys.”
And for the State there would be gains as well.
First, these contests would literally eliminate a great many gang members who could not be removed any other way.
Second, police and prosecutors could concentrate their limited resources on gangs that refused to participate and/or were deemed to pose the greatest threat.
Third, millions of dollars in State revenues would be generated through ticket sales and the buying of streaming rights.
Fourth, for Republican politicians, there would be an added bonus: Their constituents would find this an especially attractive way to fight crime because it would adhere to the two concepts most precious to Right-wingers: Killing people and making money.
Admittedly, many law-abiding citizens would be repulsed by the carnage that would result from implementing this proposal. But these are generally the people who disdain boxing or wrestling contests anyway.
Given our increasingly jaded and violence-prone society, however, even most of these people would eventually tolerate these contests as an effective way to simultaneously raise badly-needed tax revenues and reduce the size of criminal gangs.
In short: With sufficient creativity and ruthlessness, it should be possible to reclaim control of our streets from the evils of gang violence.
Share this: