FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Creating Criminals, One Petty Law at a Time

When former Secretary of Education William Bennett suggested in 2005 that one way to reduce crime would be to “abort every black baby,” he claimed he was being ironic and trying to demonstrate the moral reprehensibility of such Machiavellian thinking.  However, he did not say “all babies,” and he did not retreat from his underlying racist premise that blacks are more likely than whites to commit crimes.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has responded to a spate of assaults and killings at nightclubs by proposing a new ordinance that would ban people from standing (“loitering, he calls it) in front of them for more than three minutes.  Newsom is a rising star in the Democratic party.  On the surface, it appears as if a compassionate white mayor is finally exhibiting concern for black victims of violent crime.  (Apparently, a majority of the nightclub assaults involved black men.)  But Newsom’s modest proposal is premised on the same foul stereotype as Bennett’s that black nightclub-goers are more likely than other people to commit violent crime.  Officials would never propose such sweeping restrictions on freedom of movement to prevent ‘white crimes’, such as prohibiting disgruntled workers from visiting their former places of employment, or barring football fans from donning the colors of the visiting team while sitting in the home team’s section.

Every horrible  episode  does not require a new rule.  Murders outside of nightclubs are probably no more common than murders inside of bars and clubs.  We have become a nation of knee-jerkers who legislate according to the sensational, the aberrant, even the outlandish, rather than the studied, statistical, or principled.  In a free society, we don’t punish the majority for the crimes of the minority, or ascribe guilt, or guilty intent, based merely on status (nightclub-goer) or innocuous conduct (congregating outside).  Except, apparently now we do.

Government officials cannot and should not be counted upon to make principled distinctions about what constitutes innocent versus miscreant assembly, absent some indicia of actual criminal conduct.  Newsom’s law would exempt people who are smoking, waiting for a bus, or engaged in a short list of other officially sanctioned behaviors.  But no list of exemptions will prevent security guards or police from enforcing the law based on their own social, cultural, behavioral, or even racial biases.

A person smoking would be exempted, while a person getting a breath of fresh air would not be.  Revelers waiting outside for a friend to show up, or for one to exit, might be ordered to move several doors down, while people chatting up the band between sets might be given a pass.  People engaged in innumerable forms of protected expressive activity, from distributing literature, to picketing, to reading posted bills, to panhandling, to — yes –- arguing nonviolently with one another, let alone with authorities who tell them to scram, could find themselves subject to arrest.  A security guard probably would decline to ward off a friend of the door person who stopped by to chat.  But the same security guard would be free to chase away anyone who flunked his/her own personal attitude test.

The point is not that everyone who lingers in front of a nightclub will be warned, cited, or arrested.  The risk is just the opposite: that authorities will use this broad power selectively, to choose who is a VIP or who gets the bum’s rush.  The effect literally will be to carve private ante-clubs out of the public sidewalk, thereby obliterating yet more public space.  Like the filling of wetlands for condos and malls, this has been the trend throughout the country now for decades.  San Francisco of all cities, which has historically set a national example of expanding civil rights, should not follow suit.
Mayor Newsom’s proposal also treads on dangerous cultural ground.  In many cultures, the community gathering grounds are outside, not inside, in town plazas and parks, where public transportation corridors intersect, or as public space continues to shrink, on public corners and sidewalks.  Densely populated San Francisco, a walking city, lends itself to vibrant street culture more than many other American cities, and outdoor gaggles of people, often sidewalk regulars, are common.  This is part of San Francisco’s multicultural charm.  More importantly, it is an enshrined liberty interest.  Newsom’s law would enable authorities to further mold and homogenize culture by imposing their dominant social paradigms on minorities, racial or otherwise.  This, in part, is what has always been wrong with gang injunctions.
Of course, the notion that such a law would even work to increase the peace is ludicrous on its face.  Nightclub goers could still fight next door, on the corner, or in the parking lot.  Moreover, unequal enforcement of the law might start more than a few fights, and further alienate some members of the community, where such alienation is itself the ultimate root cause of extreme antisocial behavior — to wit, violent crime.

Newsom’s proposal is an ill-conceived political band aid which will hurt more than it helps.  At best, like his aesthetically-driven, out of sight out of mind approaches to homelessness patterned after Rudy Guiliani’s broken windows theory, it will just push the problem down the street, somewhere else.  Everyone wants to prevent murders outside of nightclubs.  But we don’t, as William Bennett probably meant to say, solve crime by aborting any possibility of its occurrence, or closing off every place where it might occur, even though it is beyond cavil that such totalitarian approaches work.
An American police state takes its own form:  we gradually exchange a rights-based system, in which government power is checked by law, for a paternalistic one in which we are all arrestable multiple times a day as we prosaically go about our lives, but trust the police to reserve their awesome power for use against the “bad guys.”  In the process, we cede the government carte blanche to determine who the bad guys are.  Every new rule creates a new set of “criminals” of people who weren’t before.  Newsom’s law would provide yet another pretext for police to detain and search anyone they regard as suspicious, want to put in the system, or simply wish to target.  The question is how exceptions to democracy will we permit ourselves before we have to admit we no longer live in one.

BEN ROSENFELD is a San Francisco civil rights attorney, and a Member of the Board of Directors of the Civil Liberties Defense Center (www.cldc.org) based in Eugene, OR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Ben Rosenfeld is a civil rights attorney in San Francisco.

Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail