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.

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail