Gang Sweeps Only Look Good : Low-Profile, Constant Street Policing Is the Better Idea

For some time now--many years, in fact--Los Angeles has suffered a plague of gang-related criminal violence. Gang members and innocents alike have been slaughtered, large segments of the community have been terrorized. Acting with the senselessness that so often marks the young offender, gangs have wreaked havoc throughout the city. This is intolerable and must stop.

Ten days ago the Los Angeles Police Department embarked on a dramatic effort to strike back at the gangs by mobilizing an enormous task force to make mass arrests of gang members and others for all possible criminal violations, from traffic citationsto more serious criminal offenses. The sweep has received wide media attention and appears to have general public approval. Although it represents a major commitment of personnel, costing an estimated $150,000 a day in overtime, it is also an example of our general failure to take crime, in this instance gang crime, seriously.

What I mean by taking crime seriously is combatting crime not only with those means that are easy, quick and emotionally satisfying but also undertaking long-term solutions, even if they involve more difficult, more costly and less immediately rewarding methods.

Part of the problem comes from our taste for the dramatic. We like law enforcement as Hollywood imagines it was in the Wild West--courageous, tough men doing personal battle with bad guys, with the bad guys getting their just deserts from the barrel of a gun instead of a judge’s gavel. The Los Angeles Police Department is faithful to this image, emphasizing the macho, get-tough, cop-with-a-gun approach to law enforcement. The gang sweep is just a variation on the theme of the cavalry coming to the aid of besieged setters. It makes good drama. It is symbolically appropriate. It is not serious law enforcement.

The sweep almost certainly will not generate many significant prosecutablecases, at least in proportion to the resources expended. It may result in the arrest of suspects on outstanding warrants on previously investigated crimes; that would be useful. But having 1,000 police officers descend on a community is hardly the best way to catch people who wish to remain at large. The sweep also may result in prosecutions of crimes directly observed by the police, but the same objection holds here: How many serious crimes are committed in clear view of an officer? Some cases may result from searches of suspects arrested or investigated for minor offenses, but these will be subject to serious and appropriate doubts about the legal validity of the searches. Finally, in terms of gathering background information on gangs in order to build future cases, that can be more efficiently accomplished by officers working the community on a low-key basis.

We have to remember that even with the most thorough of investigations, gang crimes are difficult to prosecute. Often, key witnesses are gang members who either will not testify or, if they do take the stand, will be subject to serious impeachment by the defense, either because of their criminal records or the cooperation deal that they have made with the state. If there are citizen witnesses, they are often afraid to come forward for fear of gang retaliation. A sweep is not a “percentage move” in terms of making cases that stick. What is the real purpose of the sweep? Well, part of police work is maintaining control of the streets. By a show of force, the LAPD sends gang members a message: We are still in charge. Or that’s the idea anyway. What is the reality? Gang members are not the sort who quake at the prospect of a night behind bars. With them it is more likely a badge of honor, another item for the gang resume. And most of those picked up were released the same night using a quick booking and release system. Some gang activity will be temporarily suppressed by the presence of so many police, but again, not commensurate with the resources expended.

Far more effective is the community based approach to gangs that is emphasized by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Under this approach, gang problems are handled by officers assigned to a particular community who develop an expertise on the neighborhood and its gangs. The deputies, by essentially working a beat, learn what is happening on the street so that when a gang related crime occurs, they can put it in context. They have an idea of who might be responsible or who knows who is responsible. Working a beat in this way may not produce dramatic results on a daily basis, but in the long run it works.

It would be wrong to lay all the blame for law-enforcement shortcomings on Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and the LAPD, however. They care as much about crime as anyone, and if their tactics are poorly chosen, that does not impugn the sincerity of their motivation.

The same cannot be said of the public which applauds the sweeps but fails to put its money where its mouth is. Everyone knows that the city does not have enough police officers, but the majority of local citizens, directly through votes on a number of city proposals to raise money for more police, and indirectly through Proposition 13 and similar revenue-raising restrictions, have decided not to pay for more law enforcement. Politicians have mimicked this trend, urging tougher and tougher criminal laws without the means to implement them.

You want to put more bad guys away? Guess what--it costs money. It will require a larger criminal justice system, from police to corrections, with particular emphasis on the latter. If you like the idea of locking up even more people, pay for it. Prisons are expensive. If you think it may be time to explore alternatives to prison, those alternatives will cost money too. At the very minimum, increased funding for probation and parole services is necessary.

As LAPD sweeps demonstrate, money alone is not the answer. It must be used wisely. But that is no longer the real issue. The real issue is why we expect to get something for nothing.

A truly serious approach to crime, of course, would be even more expensive, fiscally and politically, involving a rethinking of the whole problem. It would address the larger and more difficult issues of crime --the generation of crime by the demand for illegal drugs, the impact of easy access to firearms and the social acceptance of violence--as well as the reasons--social, moral, economic and racial--why America suffers more crime than any other developed nation in the world. But one step at a time. We don’t need to solve all the nation’s woes to address drive-by shootings. Let’s start with some serious law enforcement.