Research Paper on:
California's Anti Gang Injunctions and Whether or Not They Are Practical

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
a result, gang members threatened and intimidated residents. This makes one wonder whether or not gang injunctions are a good idea. Apparently, they can backfire. What should be done  about the gang problem if these are not imposed? Gang abatement injunctions have become more and more popular in California as state courts have granted close to a dozen civil  injunctions in order to outlaw gang activities in ten cities (Jacobius 34). Officials who like the strategy include Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti as he sees the  injunctions as having the ability to stop crime before it happens. However, those who are opposed to the plan include the ACLU (34). Also, in 1998, the Supreme Court questioned  the anti-loitering law targeting violent street gang members, suggesting that they might sweep too broadly and violate the rights of innocent bystanders (Vicini PG). The American Civil Liberties Union has  argued that gang injunctions violate the rights of people to associate with one another for noncriminal purposes and also claimed that the provisions were too vague (Jacobius 34). Some say  that the court went too far, and claim that upholding such injunctions unconstitutionally infringe on freedom of association (34). What happens is that while gang injunctions prohibit gang-banging  activities like vandalism, graffiti, and possessing weapons, the injunctions generally do not stop there and may include other activities such as standing, sitting, walking, driving, or simply appearing  anywhere in public view (Siegal 28). Obviously, this has gotten some people angry. After all, a persons civil liberties should not be taken away for any reason. However, one reason  why people claim that the laws should be implemented is because they are somewhat effective (Grogger 69). At the same time, even if the streets could be cleaned up, is