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
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail