Hadiya Pendleton (Chicago, Peoria, Washington: credit, felons, lawyers)

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

These gangs are at war with The United States; they're in a state of rebellion and should be treated just as Confederates or hostile Indians were: shot on sight.

Agree. It's ridiculous that something so juvenile as a gang could wreak havoc on a city. Time to put a bullet in this Lord of the Flies crap and bring the adults in.

[Wild100s]

There are 60 active gangs in Chicago. Additionally, there are more than 600 splinter groups. Each one of those groups contain between 20 to 400 individuals. Yeah, good luck apprehending all of them -- even with the National Guard patrolling city streets, which is not a long-term solution or fixes the underlying problems which create violence.

From the Chicago Reporter:

The city’s 21 leading communities for youth homicides, all majority-black or majority-Latino communities on the city’s South, Southwest and West sides, account for just 32 percent of the city’s residents. But they also account for:

More than 73 percent of the city’s 1,118 homicide victims under the age of 25 from 2008 through 2012

Almost 70 percent of Chicago’s population loss between 2000 and 2010. Those 21 communities collectively lost 140,000 residents during that time. The city as a whole lost 200,000 residents

More than 53 percent of the locations of Chicago public school closings announced since 2001

Nearly 43 percent of Chicago’s 109,000 foreclosure filings from January 2007 through June 2012

More than 71 percent of the city’s 138 public elementary schools that were low-performing in math [“Low-performing” is defined as schools where fewer than 10 percent of students’ standardized test scores exceeded state standards during the 2011-2012 school year]

Furthermore, these communities also have heightened levels of poverty, unemployment and percentages of adults without high school diplomas.

Until this gets rectified, we will continue to see more deaths.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Wild100s

Yeah, good luck apprehending all of them -- even with the National Guard patrolling city streets, which is not a long-term solution or fixes the underlying problems which create violence.

We need to suppress them not apprehend them. History shows that violent reaction can effectively suppress violent groups, especially when these groups are dedicated merely to brigandage and crime. If The United States could suppress the Comanches it can sure as Hell suppress street gangs. It's a matter of will.

[rubbersoul89]

Originally Posted by ProgMichael

First of all, we all know that this isn't going to get corrected overnight. This is going to take years, maybe even a generation to get substantial improvement. Obviously the presence of gangs is the leading issue and the lack of father figures for many of these boys leads them to turn to gang members for that paternal need. Furthermore, many of these people in the poorer neighborhoods do not trust the police and those who do fear the repercussions of helping the police. I'm not a sociologist, but on the surface my two main thoughts would be this:

1) Whether fair or not, Police can no longer just be law enforcement. Police officers need to be community activists as well. They need to be in the neighborhoods not just on-duty, but off-duty as well. They need to go to the churches, participate in neighborhood activities, volunteer at elementary and middle schools. They need to establish rapport with the neighborhood residents. I know it's beyond the scope of typical police duty, but if we're serious about fighting crime then we need to engage residents and build trust, and not create an even greater arc of fear. What's worked in New York City and Newark is not working here. This request is difficult but not unrealistic and it CAN be done: Cathy Lanier Changes Policing in D.C. and Maybe Nation

2) Can we create a social program where Chicagoans (and even suburbanites) mentor a child from a single-parent home in a poorer neighborhood. You would have the young boy or girl one day a week, and communicate with them via phone, Skype, etc. every day. You would be responsible for being another father/mother figure. Many of these children do not have a positive influence in their lives. Sure, from a distance they see what life is like for people with financial means and a safe environment, but it's not a part of their everyday lives, it's not something tangible. I know many will shake this off as creating big government (and I realize funding is difficult now, but the onus is mostly on the mentor), but something has to be done to stem the bottomless pit of poverty. I know this can't be done for everyone, and I know this is not a foolproof program, but perhaps we could try it for a few years and determine its effectiveness. At high schools such as Urban Prep, teachers serve as mentors as well. Their interaction with students is not limited to the school day. Apply this on a larger social scale.

Chicago needs a think-outside-the-box mentality. Furthermore we cannot accept the "quick fix". We need to understand that our decisions today should impact future generations. Lastly, perhaps we need to not only look at US urban success stories, but Canadian ones as well. The most dangerous cities in Canada have about one-third the violent crime rate of Chicago. Sure it's cultural, but let's look north of the border too to gauge effectiveness in fighting crime. Apologies for the long-winded note here.

great post.

compare the difference in approach between an idea like the one proposed above and the one i quoted below:

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

These gangs are at war with The United States; they're in a state of rebellion and should be treated just as Confederates or hostile Indians were: shot on sight.

i'll give you a hint: one has a good chance of helping, one is asking for an increase in violence.

once people start understanding the roots of these issues and stop with clueless suggestions like "we should just kill them all!" then we can actually start to get somewhere.

Originally Posted by Link N. Parker

There were more shooting deaths in the 90's, for sure, but someone was saying, the reason for less deaths now, is simply better medical care...yes shootings went down for a while, but now shootings are back up, and the reason those who are shot are not dying is because the hospitals have better medical care when it happens.

It would be interesting to see how many "shootings" there were then, and now, and to see if they are the same, even though the number of deaths has gone down.

interesting, i too would be interested to see the statistics on that.

however, violent crime of all types has dropped quite a bit as well. so i think there is more to it than just medical care.

[jonnynonos]

There is an arrogance in thinking one can understand what drives people to commit such terrible crimes.

Many times, such "sympathetic people" are having their egos manipulated like a flute.

[TBideon]

gangs = terrorists. I will never understand why we treat the former with kid gloves, considering they've done exponentially more damage to US citizens than Islamists and occasional redneck militia groups.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by rubbersoul89

i'll give you a hint: one has a good chance of helping, one is asking for an increase in violence.

once people start understanding the roots of these issues and stop with clueless suggestions like "we should just kill them all!" then we can actually start to get somewhere.

Predators respond to bigger, more dangerous predators. The Midwestern bandit gangs of the Depression were suppressed by a ruthless campaign to kill and jail them not by hand wringing over social conditions in rural Indiana and Oklahoma. If you want to improve society that's swell but meanwhile we need to terrorize criminal gangs.

[ProgMichael]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

There is an arrogance in thinking one can understand what drives people to commit such terrible crimes.

Many times, such "sympathetic people" are having their egos manipulated like a flute.

OK, that's fair. Therefore since we don't know, do you suggest we do nothing?

[rubbersoul89]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

There is an arrogance in thinking one can understand what drives people to commit such terrible crimes.

Many times, such "sympathetic people" are having their egos manipulated like a flute.

There is a much greater arrogance in thinking that these major issues that plague our society are simply the result of "bad people" and not an interaction of socio-economic forces.

Many times, such "narrow minded people" just simply have massive egos and can't imagine living a life that isn't their own.

Originally Posted by TBideon

gangs = terrorists. I will never understand why we treat the former with kid gloves, considering they've done exponentially more damage to US citizens than Islamists and occasional redneck militia groups.

so what do you propose we do about this terrorism?

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Predators respond to bigger, more dangerous predators. The Midwestern bandit gangs of the Depression were suppressed by a ruthless campaign to kill and jail them not by hand wringing over social conditions in rural Indiana and Oklahoma. If you want to improve society that's swell but meanwhile we need to terrorize criminal gangs.

so what's your plain of action, again? shoot anyone you suspect of being a gangbanger on sight?

the 12 year old's too?

[TBideon]

Well, it depends if you're talking about the real world or an ideal world. In the real world, I, presuming I'm some influential political figure, would have very little recourse due to a combination of constitutional illegalities (i.e. calling in the National Guard or even the US military to south and westside hot zones) and the overly politically correct/overly sensitive/overly irrational nature of these communities i.e. anything I would do would be construed as racist.

In an ideal world, I suppose I would treat these urban terrorists as I would any Islamist cell, hate group, or treasonous organization. Stripping gangbangers of their US citizenship would be start; exporting them to a penal colony outside of US borders would be the next step.

Gangbangers and to a lesser degree wannabees are evil and destructive. Just imagine how much less crime there would be in this country if they were prohibited. And again I acknowledge this isn't realistic. In the US there is no greater fear than being branded a racist, and in doing so we refuse to make any pragmatic attempt at improving the lives of so many. In addition, for many there is no greater joy or comfort or satisfaction than calling others racist. So...basically we are one f'd up country.