perceptions of gangs among prosecutors in an emerging gang city.pdf

7/27/2019 Perceptions of gangs among prosecutors in an emerging gang city.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perceptions-of-gangs-among-prosecutors-in-an-emerging-gang-citypdf 1/13

Perceptions of gangs among prosecutors in an emerging gang

city ☆ ☆☆ Kathleen A. Foxa, , ,

Jodi Laneb

a Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 2296, Huntsville, Texas 77341-2296, United States

b Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117330; 3219 Turlington Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7330, United States http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.031, How to Cite or Link Using DOI

Permissions & Reprints

Abstract

Gangs were a target of widespread political and social attention during the 1990s, and despite a short-lived lull in policy focus, gangs

are recently receiving increased attention from policymakers. In spite of political concern about gangs, very little research had

examined perceptions of gangs. By conducting face-to-face interviews with thirty of thirty-five county prosecutors, this study was

among the first to examine prosecutors' perspectives of gangs in Gainesville, Florida, an area that could be considered an “emerging

gang city. Themes from the interviews were extracted and included prosecutorial perceptions of the: (1) definition and prevalence of

gangs in Gainesville, Florida; (2) personal and social characteristics of gang members; (3) reasons people join gangs; and (4) bes

approaches to stop or eliminate gangs. The ways in which prosecutors' perspectives mirror prior research on gangs is highlighted.

Introduction

Research on gangs had primarily focused on various aspects of membership and delinquency and had often overlooked perceptions

of gangs. While much of the prior research on gangs focused on large “chronic” gang cities (places with an extensive history o

gangs), a substantial amount of research had also examined “emerging” gang cities (places with recent increases in gang activity)

(Spergel & Curry, 1993). A considerable body of research examined gangs within emerging gang cities, such as Columbus, Ohio (J

Miller, 1998); Denver, Colorado (Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, 1993); Kansas City, Missouri (Fleisher, 1998); Las Cruces, New

Mexico (Winfree, Mays, & Vigil-Backstrom, 1994);1 Las Vegas, Nevada (McCorkle & Miethe, 1998); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Hagedorn

1988); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991); Rochester, New York (Thornberry

Krohn, Lizotte, & Chard-Wierschem, 1993); San Diego, California (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998); and San Francisco, California

(Waldorf, 1993). Furthermore, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) national evaluation examined severa

emerging gang cities, including Portland, Oregon and Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska (Esbensen, Osgood, Taylor, Peterson, & Freng

2001). Yet, prior research on emerging gang cities had primarily focused on the correlates of gang membership rather than examining

perceptions of gangs. What is less understood are public or policymakers' perceptions of gang activities. While some research had

examined the perceptions of gangs among police, youth, students, and teachers (Johnson et al., 1995, Katz & Webb, 2006, St. Cyr &

Decker, 2003 and Swetnam & Pope, 2001), prosecutors' perceptions of gangs, especially within an emerging gang city, is largely

unknown.

This exploratory study addressed gaps in the literature by focusing on prosecutors' perspectives on four related questions: (1) What is

the definition and prevalence of gangs in Gainesville, Florida? (2) What are the social and personal characteristics of gang members?

(3) What are the reasons people join gangs? and (4) What are the best approaches to stop or eliminate gangs? The following section

first reviews the limited literature that examined prosecutors' perceptions of gangs and then presents research on each of the four

issues of interest in the current study.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000863#item1





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000863






http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.031


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/help/doi.htm



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=RedirectURL&_method=outwardLink&_partnerName=936&_eid=1-s2.0-S0047235210000863&_pii=S0047235210000863&_origin=article&_zone=art_page&_targetURL=https%3A%2F%2Fs100.copyright.com%2FAppDispatchServlet%3FpublisherName%3DELS%26contentID%3DS0047235210000863%26orderBeanReset%3Dtrue&_acct=C000010022&_version=1&_userid=11812256&md5=2d238f75e9e5ed27e43aa82923cc0b42


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000863#bib45
















http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000863#fn1








































mailto:[email protected]



































Importance of prosecutors' perceptions of gangs

Understanding prosecutors' perspectives of gangs is important given the power prosecutors have over offenders' - and gang members

- criminal cases and the influence they sometimes have over legislation. Prosecutors typically have substantial discretion over the

nature of criminal charges, sanctions, and the decision regarding whether or not to pursue gang-enhanced charges (Jackson

2004 and Walker, 1993). Moreover, prosecutors often participate in gang-related programming and create task-forces that influence

gang-related policies (Gramckow & Tompkins, 1999). Indeed, prosecutors' perceptions of gang members directly influence thei

responses and reactions to gang members. Decker and Kempf-Leonard (1991)suggest that policymakers' perceptions of gangs maybe even more important than the public's perceptions given that, “in a very real sense, the response of policymakers to gangs defines

them as a social problem” (p. 274). Ultimately, understanding prosecutors' perceptions of gangs is critical for recognizing and

interpreting legal responses to gangs.

Couched in the “emerging” gang city perspective, the current study attempted to address gaps in the literature by contributing to the

existing research on gangs in at least two important ways. First, the present study was one of the few to assess prosecutors

perceptions of gangs. Prosecutors offer a unique perspective on crime, given that they are exposed to crime and offenders daily

Second, this research focused on perspectives of gangs in a unique location – the medium-sized growing city of Gainesville, Florida

which might be considered an emerging gang city (Spergel & Curry, 1993). Although some research had examined social and

demographic characteristics of gang members, gang activities, reasons for joining gangs, and programs and policies designed to

reduce or eliminate gangs, prosecutors' perceptions of these issues have been largely overlooked. Gaining an understanding o

prosecutors' perceptions about gang members and gang activity is critical to understanding and addressing gangs given the impact

prosecutors have on gang members, their cases, and policy. Consequently, prosecutors from a medium-sized city were interviewed

regarding their perceptions of local gangs, their knowledge of the personal and social characteristics of gang members, their beliefs

about the reasons for joining gangs, and their recommendations for stopping gangs.

Prior research on prosecutors' perceptions of gangs

Despite the important role prosecutors' play in the prosecution of gangs, only a handful of studies had examined prosecutors

perspectives of gangs. Furthermore, in the scant research that had assessed prosecutors' perspectives of gangs, the samples were

comprised of other individuals of interest as well, including law enforcement, school officials, politicians, probation and parole officers,and correctional personnel (Johnson et al., 1995, Katz & Webb, 2006 and McCorkle & Miethe, 1998). Although prosecutors were no

the only focus, these important studies identified interesting similarities and differences with other key criminal justice personnel. Fo

example, Johnson et al. (1995) identified many similarities between prosecutors and law enforcement officials' survey responses

regarding perceptions of a growing gang “problem” within the communities, types of crimes gang members often engaged in (drugs

and violence), and a perceived lack of early intervention programs designed to eliminate gangs. Similarly, Katz and Webb

(2006) discovered many similar perceptions about gangs obtained from interviews with law enforcement and other stakeholders

(including attorneys).

Other research indicated prosecutors had some different perceptions of gangs in comparison with law enforcement. McCorkle and

Miethe (1998) interviewed a variety of individuals expected to have the most exposure to gangs, including prosecutors, in Las Vegas

Nevada. While the study was not primarily focused on prosecutorial perspectives of gang crime, the authors reported that prosecutors

were uncomfortable with the way the police broadly identified and labeled individuals as gang members. Interestingly, prosecutors

reported that while prosecuting gang members, they learned that gang stereotypes were not realistic. Instead of “criminal enterprises,

prosecutors described gangs as “simply loose, shifting associations without stable leadership, role expectations, or collective goals

(McCorkle & Miethe, 1998, p. 60), which was consistent with most prior research on gangs (Decker, 1996, Howell, 2000, Klein

1995 and Klein & Maxson, 2006). Overall, the limited research on prosecutors' perceptions of gangs offered important preliminary

insights that suggest further exploration of prosecutorial perspectives of gangs is essential given the impact prosecutors have on gang

members and their cases.










































































Definitions and prevalence of gangs

Defining gangs has been a consistent focus of gang research (Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001). While a comprehensive

discussion of the variety of gang definitions among scholars and legislation was beyond the scope of this study, several main

definitional features will briefly be mentioned here (see Ball & Curry, 1995, for a detailed discussion of gang definitions). Some gang

definitions are limited to street gangs, which require the members to spend time together outside of other institutions, such as home

school, or work (Klein & Maxson, 2006). Other definitions are limited to youth gangs, and prohibit the inclusion of motorcycle gangs,

prison gangs, supremacist groups, political terrorists, organized crime groups, and adult gangs (Klein, 1995 and National Youth GangCenter, 2009). Furthermore, some gang definitions require involvement with deviant and/or criminal behavior (Klein & Maxson, 2006)

whereas others do not (Short, 1996). Klein and Maxson (2006) offer one of the most parsimonious definitions of gangs, which

characterize a street gang as “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of its group identity

(p. 4).

Identifying the prevalence of gangs and gang members also continues to present challenges for legislators and researchers alike

(Spergel, 1990). The prevalence of gangs has most often been measured using survey research to directly assess gang membership

through self-reports (i.e., G.R.E.A.T.) or indirectly by surveying criminal justice personnel (NYGC, 2009). Self-report surveys indicated

approximately 11 percent of elementary and high school students admitted gang membership (Esbensen & Winfree, 1998 and Gove

et al., 2009). Recent National Youth Gang Survey estimates from law enforcement officials suggested that larger cities (with

populations over 50,000) had more gangs and more gang members than smaller cities (with populations between 2,500 and 49,999)

(NYGC, 2009). In terms of gangs, the NYGC (2009) reported that 34 percent of larger cities had seven to fifteen gangs (compared to

16 percent for smaller cities), 17 percent of larger cities had sixteen to thirty gangs (compared to 4 percent for smaller cities), and 22

percent of larger cities had over thirty gangs (while none of the smaller cities reported over thirty gangs). In terms of gang members

over 50 percent of smaller cities reported less than fifty gang members while 82 percent of larger cities reported more than fifty gang

members (with 21 percent of large cities reporting over 1,000 gang members) (NYGC, 2009).

As discussed earlier, very few studies have assessed prosecutors' perceptions of gangs; however, those that do described

prosecutors' beliefs about prevalence with more generalities than specific prevalence rates. For example, a prosecutor interviewed

by Katz and Webb (2006, p. 97) said that the gang problem “is very extensive” while Johnson et al. (1995) indicated that the majority

of prosecutors (78 percent) in large and small jurisdictions believed that violent gang crime had increased. Given that limitations

plague all available methods to assess the prevalence of gangs and gang members (e.g., inconsistent record-keeping across

jurisdictions, inability to track all gang members, under-reporting and over-reporting involvement with gangs), it is important to assess

perspectives from a variety of sources to better realize consistencies and trends.

Personal and social characteristics of gangs

Prior research identified personal demographic characteristics of gang members (i.e., gender, age, and race/ethnicity) using data from

law enforcement, general public, and gang members. In terms of gender differences in gang membership, law enforcement surveyed

by the National Youth Gang Center indicated over 90 percent of gang members were male (NYGC, 2009). Furthermore, prior research

had largely interviewed male gang members (Decker & VanWinkle, 1996 and Thrasher, 1927; but see Joe & Chesney-Lind

1995, Miller, 2002, Miller & Decker, 2001 and Zatz & Portillos, 2000 on gang girls). Alternatively, self-report surveys indicated tha

females comprised a substantial portion of gangs. Cross-sectional and longitudinal survey data suggested 35-38 percent of gang

members were female (Esbensen & Winfree, 1998,Gover et al., 2009 and Peterson et al., 2004). While estimates of female

involvement in gangs varied based on the sample of interest (e.g., law enforcement, general public, gang members), prior research

has established that males are more likely to be gang members than females (Howell, 1998).

In terms of the age of gang members, law enforcement agencies indicated that gang members in larger cities were more likely to be

over age eighteen and younger than eighteen years old in smaller cities (NYGC, 2009). In a review of the literature on gang

members, Howell (1998) suggested that gang members tend to be twelve to twenty-four years old although he pointed out that the

proportion of both younger and older gang members have increased. While researchers tend to agree that gangs are comprised of
































































































































members from all age groups, the proportion of older versus younger gang members remains unclear, perhaps due to the limited

number of self-report surveys that target adults rather than focus solely on juveniles (e.g., Esbensen & Winfree, 1998,Gover et al.

2009 and Peterson et al., 2004).

Research examining the racial and ethnic composition of gang members suggested that racial minorities comprise a substantia

portion of gangs, and this finding has largely been linked to lower socioeconomic status (Howell, 1998 and Miller, 1974). Law

enforcement agencies reported that gangs are largely Hispanic/Latino (47 percent in large cities and 48 percent in small cities) and

African American/Black (38 percent in large cities and 33 percent in small cities) (NYGC, 2009). Furthermore, some research also

focused exclusively on racial minority gang members (Chin et al., 1992, Cureton, 2002, Tsunokai & Kposowa, 2002 and Vigil, 2002)

Alternatively, some self-report survey data indicated that Whites are as likely to admit to gang membership as Blacks and Hispanics

(Esbensen & Winfree, 1998 and Peterson et al., 2004).

Gang members reported engaging in a variety of illegal and legal social activities (Klein, 1995 and Spergel, 1990). While gang

members engage in fighting, violence, and crime, scholars indicate that gang members primarily ‘hang out’ together and socialize with

each other (Decker, 1996, Decker & VanWinkle, 1996, Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995 and Thornberry et al., 1993). Klein (1995) remarked

that gang members “do very little – sleep, get up late, hang around, brag a lot, eat again, drink, hang around some more. It's a boring

life; the only thing that is equally boring is being a researcher watching gang members” (p. 11).

Reasons for joining gangs

Interviews and self-report surveys indicated that gang members join gangs for a variety of reasons. For example, interviews with gang

members revealed that many joined gangs due to living in a high-crime and low socioeconomic neighborhood, violence within the

home, boredom, to meet or impress girls, and because friends or family members were gang members (Decker & Curry, 2000 and Joe

& Chesney-Lind, 1995). Self-report surveys suggested that gang members join gangs for many of the same reasons as well as for

entertainment, protection, respect, and money (Peterson et al., 2004).

While asking gang members directly through interviews or surveys about their personal reasons for joining gangs revealed interesting

and valuable information, criminal justice personnel may provide equally important information about the reasons people join gangs

Given the nature of their profession, criminal justice personnel are often knowledgeable about the physical, social, and family

environment to which offenders (and gang members) are exposed. Criminal justice personal are unique in that they may possess a

least a partial “insider's” perspective of offenders and gang members while maintaining the separation of an “outsider.” This

combination of “insider ” and “outsider ” perspectives might allow criminal justice personnel to identify reasons for joining gangs more

objectively than gang members themselves. Despite the advantage criminal justice personnel may have in explaining gang

membership, very little research has explored this resource. One important exception is the Law Enforcement Mail Questionnaire

conducted by Knox, Tromanhauser, Jackson, Niklas, Houston, Koch, and Sutton (1993). Knox et al. (1993) discovered that the

majority of law enforcement officers (approximately 75 percent) believed parenting problems was the primary reason for gang

membership, in addition to poor self-esteem, desire for acceptance, peer pressure, protection, fear of personal injury, family members

gang membership, and financial gain.

Stopping gangs

Much research has examined policies and programs designed to stop or eliminate gangs. Some programs focused specifically on

prevention (e.g., G.R.E.A.T.), intervention (e.g., Boys and Girls Club), and suppression (e.g., police and prosecutor responses), while

others were more comprehensive (e.g., the Spergel Model) (Howell, 2000 and Klein & Maxson, 2006). While many programs and

policies have been established to address the gang problem, most have not been empirically evaluated and, therefore, their

effectiveness at reducing or eliminating gangs is largely unknown (Klein & Maxson, 2006). In the absence of program evaluations

researchers have employed alternative methods in an effort to understand perceptions of promising ways to stop or reduce gang

membership. More specifically, perceptions of both gang members and law enforcement officers have often been the primary sources

of this information. Interestingly, Decker (1996) reported that gang members believed the best way to get rid of gangs would be to use





















































































































extreme violence to exterminate the members and, therefore, the gang. Law enforcement personnel perceived more training and

funding for gang-related enforcement were important ways to combat gangs (Knox et al., 1993). Prosecutors have not yet been

queried about ways to stop gangs, yet individuals from this branch of the criminal justice system may provide a unique and important

perspective of what works to reduce gang membership. As mentioned earlier, prosecutors' profession may elicit more of an “insider's

perspective of gang members.

Method

The context: Gainesville, Florida

Gainesville, Florida is an ideal city to examine gang crime given that it is different from the locations previously studied by gang

researchers. Located in north-central Florida, Gainesville is a medium-sized city with a population of approximately 122,671 residents.

Gainesville was named the #1 best place to live in America by Money Magazine in 1995 and was recently, in 2007, named one of the

fifty best places to live and play by National Geographic Adventure Magazine (City of Gainesville, 2007). The city may be best known

as the home of the University of Florida, with a college population of approximately 50,000 students (University of Florida, 2008)

While Gainesville has enjoyed a rapid growth rate in recent years, the city still suffers from a degree of traditional spatial segregation.

The east side, in particular, has not experienced much of the city's growth and is comprised primarily of racial minorities and people of

lower socioeconomic status, whereas the west side is comprised largely of White middle- and upper-class residents who have

benefitted from the economic and financial growth.

Unlike many locations previously studied, Gainesville is a medium-sized city and does not have a reputation for out-of-control gang

activity. Yet, practitioner concern about gangs is evident. For example, in the summer of 2007 State Attorney General, Bill McCollum

sponsored a summit wherein state agencies created the Florida Gang Reduction Strategy with goals of stopping the growth of gangs

and reducing the number of gang members (McCollum, 2008). Furthermore, in October 2007 the local sheriff's office in Gainesville

appointed a patrol officer to begin investigating and monitoring gang activity in the area (personal communication, 2009). Given the

recent concern about gangs from law enforcement in Gainesville and Senator Feinstein's claim that “gang violence is no longer a big

city problem” (Press release, 2007), Gainesville is an ideal location for exploring perceptions of and concern about gangs.

Sampling and data collection procedures

The population of interest for the current study was state prosecutors working in Gainesville, Florida (Alachua County). Permission to

interview prosecutors regarding their perceptions of crime and gangs was obtained from the State Attorney in Gainesville, who also

provided the researchers with a list of all local state prosecutors housed in the Gainesville office. There were thirty-five prosecutors

and face-to-face interviews were conducted with thirty (86 percent of the prosecutors).2 Interviews were conducted between

September 2007 and January 2008. All but one of the interviews occurred in individual prosecutors' offices and one occurred at a

coffee shop. Before each interview, prosecutors were asked to complete a short survey comprised of demographic and persona

questions and were also asked to keep one copy of an informed consent form for their records and sign and return another to the

researchers. Interviews lasted between twenty minutes to an hour, with the majority lasting approximately forty minutes. Prosecutors

participated voluntarily and received no compensation for their participation. Of the thirty participants, the majority were male (n = 23)

and White (n = 27). Table 1 presents a summary of prosecutors' demographic characteristics.

Table 1. Characteristics of prosecutors (n = 30)

Number Percent

Gender

Male 23 77

Female 7 23

Race

White 27 90

Black 3 10



















http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235210000863#tbl1












Number Percent

Political party affiliation

Republican 13 43

Democrat 11 37

Independent 6 20

Range Mean (SD)

Age 25 to 57 38 (9.23)

Years of prosecutorial experience .5 to 29 9 (7.02)

Table options

Given that the research was exploratory, the interview questions were open-ended and included some modified questions from Lane

(2002). Some questions included the following: Do you believe there are gangs or gang members living in Gainesville? Do you have

any personal experience with gangs or gang members in Gainesville? What do you think is their composition in terms of age, race

ethnicity and gender? Why do you think people join gangs? What do you think is the best approach to stop or get rid of

gangs?3 Prosecutors were asked to respond to the questions based on their experiences with the system.

All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim with the exception of three interviews which, at the request of the

interviewees, were recorded using only handwritten notes. Transcripts were then coded by hand by the research team to extract

themes that emerged. The following section presents the findings and highlights prosecutorial perceptions of: (1) the definitions and

prevalence of gangs in Gainesville, Florida; (2) the personal and social characteristics of gang members; (3) the reasons why people

join gangs; and (4) the best approaches to stop or eliminate gangs. Direct quotations from the interviews are provided to illustrate the

themes.

Results

Definitions and prevalence of Gainesville gangs

Given that legal and research definitions of gangs vary widely, and a universal definition describing the characteristics of gangs is

nonexistent, prosecutors were not provided with a definition of ‘gangs.’ Instead, respondents provided their own definitions of gangs

Interestingly, most of the prosecutors acknowledged that the meaning of ‘gang’ could be interpreted in many ways, but respondents

appeared to describe gang characteristics that were similar to each other. For example, attributes such as organization, a hierarchicastructure, similar signs and colors, and a common goal or purpose within a group context were mentioned often (see Decker &

VanWinkle, 1996 and Howell & Lynch, 2000). Two respondents mentioned the Florida Statues and another conducted an interne

search for the definition during the interview. In an effort to define gangs, over one-third of the respondents (n = 11) mentioned the

Bloods and/or the Crips as examples of gangs. Many prosecutors' definitions of gangs involved some type of deviant or crimina

behavior, as outlined in the following definition of gangs from one prosecutor:

A group of people with a common purpose who engage in criminal activity, anti-social behavior, even if doesn't r ise [to] the level o

criminal activity, with a common goal. That's enough [to be a gang]. (Interview 10)

Like researchers and legislators, prosecutors linked gangs with criminal and/or delinquent activities (Klein & Maxson, 2006)

Interestingly, considering the context of Gainesville as a college-town, four prosecutors mentioned the possibility of defining university

fraternities and sororities as gangs. One prosecutor remarked:

I'm wondering if we could classify fraternities as gangs for causing DUIs. And sororities. They all have colors, they have signs, they

have secret handshakes, they engage in illegal behavior and encourage drinking and driving …I think that that is a real problem and

we don't think about fraternities and sororities and any other organization on campus that way, as a gang, because they're not out

dealing drugs and committing violent crimes. However, they are instigating a culture which leads to criminal behavior …We see that al

the time. (Interview 18)

One prosecutor countered this sentiment by stating:





























None of their [gangs] aims are healthy. It's not the junior league, it's not a fraternity, and it's not a sorority. Their aim is not to clean up

the streets or engage in community service. Their aim is to either harm other people directly or indirectly through the sales of drugs o

directly through violence. (Interview 14)

While prosecutors recognized the challenge in providing a straightforward definition of gangs, they were far less ambiguous when

reacting to questions about the presence of gangs in Gainesville. The overwhelmingly majority of prosecutors (n = 25) acknowledged

that there were gangs and/or gang members living in Gainesville and two additional prosecutors indicated that gangs were “probably

in Gainesville, depending on the definition of the term. The remaining three prosecutors reported that gangs were not in Gainesville,

yet all three qualified their responses by explaining that their definition of gangs focused on traditionally national gangs.

Interestingly, when prosecutors were asked what types of gangs were in Gainesville, all respondents (those in agreement that gangs

exist, those who believe gangs probably exist, and those who disagreed that gangs exist in Gainesville) described remarkably similar

qualities of gangs in Gainesville. Gainesville gangs were repeatedly characterized as unorganized, loosely associated, and

neighborhood-based (see Decker, 1996,Howell, 2000, Klein, 1995, Klein & Maxson, 2006 and McCorkle & Miethe, 1998). Two

prosecutors labeled Gainesville gangs as “hybrid” gangs, which were described as formations of groups who shared commonalities

who engaged in deviant and/or criminal behavior, and who identified as gangs (see Starbuck, Howell, & Lindquist, 2001); however

these groups were characterized as unorganized, lacking control of the crime and the residents in Gainesville, and were not nationa

gangs. When describing what may be termed as “hybrid” gangs, several respondents (n = 9) contrasted the Bloods and the Crips with

Gainesville gangs, indicating that Gainesville did not have these kinds of “big city” gangs or gang problems. While prosecutors were in

agreement that national gangs in their entirety were not a problem in Gainesville, several prosecutors (n = 6) reported knowledge o

local individuals affiliated with national gangs, including the Latin Kings, Gangster Disciples, Jamaican Mafia, and the Bloods. One

prosecutor was quick to point out that the loosely-organized neighborhood gangs and individuals associated with national gangs were

indeed, problematic:

What I see in Gainesville are young hoodlum wannabes. They're not sophisticated, they're not educated, they're not stupid, thei

intelligence levels are often very high, but they choose to be little Al Capones. And they get together with two or three or four or five of

their buddies and go off on these streets, whether it's breaking into cars, like [what] happened three days ago, or breaking into houses

or committing these robberies, and that's what I think of as gangs in Gainesville. (Interview 2)

Another prosecutor described initiation rites and commitment to gangs as major differences between national gangs and Gainesville

gangs. The prosecutor described local initiation and commitment to gangs similarly to other emerging gang cities (Howell, 2000):

They do go under a similar name, they do associate with each other, they are likely to fight people that they think are from the rival

gang. Fortunately for us, we don't have this sort of gang situation where you are blessed in or somehow have some sort of initiation to

get in and therefore are never permitted out. We don't have that at all. As matter fact, evidence locally shows that kids can freely move

between…our little gangs from one to another pretty much relatively safely and it often goes by just where you live. (Interview 4)

Prosecutors were also in general agreement that Gainesville gangs were not only less like gangs in big cities in terms of

characteristics, but were also less prevalent in comparison with large cities. Several prosecutors (n = 6) contrasted Gainesville's

moderate gang prevalence with the widespread gang problem in Los Angeles and New York. One prosecutor said:

Yes, there is gang crime here in Alachua County. Nothing to the extent that you would find in Miami or New York or some of the big,

the huge metropolitan, densely populated areas. I think again the perception is that there aren't gangs in Gainesville, but the truth of

the matter is that there are. It doesn't get a lot of media, so people think there's not an issue and I don't think it's the biggest problem in

Gainesville, no, but there are gangs. (Interview 16)

Although prosecutors did not perceive gangs as being rampant in Gainesville, prosecutors indicated that gangs were more prevalen

than many believed and one prosecutor stated:

We see them all the time, prosecute them all the time…We have probably identified I would say 30 different gangs of children, gang

names, in Alachua County. Not meaning 30 children, meaning 30 different gangs. (Interview 4)






























Another prosecutor described an experience prosecuting a member of the Latin Kings for first degree murder:

We were concerned about this guy [being] associated with the Latin Kings and he [a police officer] was able to show me the notice that

GPD [Gainesville Police Department] had been concerned about and so I saw the whole list. It was like three pages long of just

different people who were now connected locally with the Latin Kings. And so I'm more aware of it. (Interview 29)

Overall, prosecutors recognized definitional issues associated with defining gangs and, yet, they were able to articulate genera

definitional characteristics of gangs, both nationally and locally. Prosecutors perceived national gangs as possessing an organizationa

hierarchical structure, similar signs and colors, and a common goal or purpose within a group context. Prosecutors perceived localgangs as unorganized, loosely associated, and neighborhood-based with less stringent initiation and membership requirements. While

prosecutors believed local gangs were less pervasive than big city gangs, some respondents indicated that local gangs were prevalent

in the community and within the criminal justice system.

Personal and social characteristics of gangs

Of the twenty-five prosecutors that indicated gangs existed in Gainesville, each were asked follow-up questions about local gangs

personal characteristics in terms of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and location of residence. In terms of age, all of these prosecutors

(n = 25) agreed that gang members were primarily juveniles (see Howell, 2000). Furthermore, all respondents indicated that gang

members age out of their gang affiliation before the age of thirty, although two prosecutors suggested that some gang members tend

to remain committed to gangs beyond their youth. One of these prosecutors remarked that a local gang member from the Latin Kings

was prosecuted while he was in his mid-twenties and another member was over the age of forty.

All of the prosecutors who were asked about the sex of local gang members maintained that they were primarily male (n = 25). One

prosecutor said that 98 percent of the gang members were male. Others suggested that females could be gang members, although

they were clearly in the minority, if they existed at all. Only one prosecutor reported knowing a female gang member. This is in line

with the extant literature on gangs, which primarily focused on male gang members (Klein & Maxson, 2006). When asked about the

race of local gangs, fourteen prosecutors agreed that gang members were largely Black, one believed they were mostly White, and

four indicated that gang members were comprised of all races and could not identify any race in particular. The remaining six either did

not know or did not identify any races. One prosecutor pointed out that gangs were often formed on the basis of race (see Klein &

Maxson, 2006 and Vigil, 2002). The majority of the prosecutors who were asked about the location of gangs (n = 15) believed thatgang members lived in the lower socioeconomic neighborhoods on the east side (including the northeast and southeast areas) of the

city (see Decker & VanWinkle, 1996). Five other prosecutors reported that gang members lived all over the city, including the wealthier

and poorer areas, four prosecutors did not identify the locations of gang members' residences, and one prosecutor said that gang

members primarily lived in jail. He stated:

They're probably in jail. In and out of jail, and I think that's historically one of the ways gangs grow or are born is the networking tha

goes on in the jail. (Interview 18)

Of the twenty-five prosecutors that agreed gangs existed in Gainesville, eighteen identified a variety of activities in which local gang

members were typically involved. Consistent with prior research, prosecutors acknowledged that gang members mostly “hang out

(n = 8) and engaged in non-criminal antisocial activities (n = 2), such as skipping school, being rude, and being verbally assaultive

(Decker, 1996, Decker & VanWinkle, 1996, Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995, Klein, 1995 and Thornberry et al., 1993). While genera

personal crimes were mentioned by five prosecutors, more specific types of personal crimes that were mentioned by some

prosecutors included fighting (n = 7), assault (n = 2), robbery (n = 1), violent crime (n = 1), violent crime with a weapon (n = 2)

extortion (n = 1), and drug rip-offs (n = 1) .4 General property crimes were mentioned by five prosecutors and more specific types of

property crimes included burglary (n = 6), theft (n = 5), vandalism/criminal mischief (n = 2), and possession of stolen property (n = 1)

Involvement with drugs was mentioned by ten prosecutors, and included buying, selling, trafficking, possessing, and transporting

illegal narcotics. Other types of criminal involvement by gang members included prostitution (n = 2) and illegal dog fighting (n = 1)

One prosecutor described typical gang activities and drew attention to the severity of gang violence:

















































Mostly just hanging around, to be honest. Hanging around, skipping school. They do commit property crimes together, but I don'

believe they do that for the benefit of the gang… Although, the one thing that they do most often is fight with each other … And then

there's a lot of retaliatory sort of [behavior]…That can get very dangerous. Our kids don't necessarily, or rarely do they, fight with just

their fists. The incidents that we've seen have almost always been weapons, things like crowbars and rarely, but it definitely happens

firearms. (Interview 4)

The excerpt above suggests that while gang members committed crimes together, the criminal behavior is “gang-affiliated” or “gang

related” and not necessarily “gang-motivated.” This is consistent with prior research that distinguishes between gang-affiliated/gang-

related crimes (involving gang members but does not result from gang membership) versus gang-motivated crimes (resulting from

gang membership) (Rosenfeld, Bray, & Egley, 1999). This sentiment was also echoed by other prosecutors, who described gang

members as naturally criminal regardless of their gang affiliations, given that the majority of their cases involving gang members were

not gang-related. The quotation above also describes the severity of violence among gang members. While local gangs were

repeatedly characterized by prosecutors as less violent than big city gangs, they were clearly involved in dangerous behavior tha

often involves the use of weapons.

In sum, prosecutors perceived gang members as juvenile males, primarily Black but also a variety of other races including White

Hispanic, and Asian. Furthermore, the majority of prosecutors believed gang members lived in the lower socioeconomic

neighborhoods on the east side of the city. Prosecutors also identified a number of activities typically engaged in by gang members

which included non-criminal activities (i.e., “hanging out” and antisocial behavior) as well as criminal activities (i.e., personal crimes

property crimes, and drug involvement) (see Decker, 1996, Decker & VanWinkle, 1996, Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995, Klein

1995 and Thornberry et al., 1993).

Reasons for joining gangs

Given the criminal and social implications of gangs, it is important to identify reasons why some individuals choose to join gangs

which may aid in generating techniques to combat gangs (see the following section for prosecutors' recommendations on stopping

gangs). Prosecutors were asked why they thought people joined gangs and their responses involved a combination of factors. The

most common responses among the thirty prosecutors included: to belong to a group or to have friends (n = 15), a lack of family

support (n = 14), and a lack of financial opportunities due to socioeconomic issues (n = 10). Other reasons mentioned for joining a

gang included: protection (n = 5), status/reputation (n = 4), peer pressure (n = 2), self-worth (n = 2), access to drugs (n = 1), traumatic

life experiences (including victimization) (n = 1), thrill seeking (n = 1), and because friends and/or family were gang members (n = 1)

Consistent with studies that directly asked gang members about their reasons for joining, prosecutors offered multifaceted

explanations for joining gangs as a result of several causes (Decker & Curry, 2000 and Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). One prosecuto

communicated this succinctly:

What else you got? These kids can't join the Mason's or the YMCA and boy scouts. They have no family situation usually, no

nurturing, and no support. Even if they've not been abused, they simply have nothing. I have yet to see one that comes from an intact

home. So I assume without being a terrific sociologist that when you don't have the support of family, and you don't have an education

you don't have wealth, and you have no skills, have no job, the next best thing is amongst those friends with whom you do things

What are you going to do, go bowling? No, you're probably stealing stuff. Makes some logical sense to me. (Interview 2)

Altogether, prosecutors identified a variety of reasons for joining a gang and many indicated that a combination of some factors

collectively facilitated gang membership. Noticeably, the most common reason mentioned for joining a gang was a desire for support

including peer, family, or financial support. These reasons provided by prosecutors were remarkably consistent with prior research

findings (e.g., Decker & Curry, 2000, Hill et al., 2001, Howell, 1998 and Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995). With the reasons for joining a

gang in mind, prosecutors described their recommendations for reducing gang crime.

Stopping gangs





















































Prosecutors offered a number of plausible ways to stop or reduce gangs from forming. While nearly every respondent recognized the

complexities associated with finding ways to stop gangs, all were willing to identify specific recommendations. Similar to responses

from some gang members within prior research, several prosecutors (n = 5) believed that stopping gangs was impossible (Decker

1996). One prosecutor regarded gangs as inevitable:

I don't think you could really get rid of gangs. It's just human nature, I think, for some people to just form gangs … [An] increased

presence of officers in areas where there's gang activity…almost just seems to form gangs as opposed to getting rid of gangs

because if you break up the gang it's not like the gang's going to die. They're going to go make other little gangs. (Interview 23)

The most common recommendations for combating gangs included providing help to parents and families (n = 10), prevention

programs for youth (n = 8), early intervention strategies (n = 8), education (n = 9), and suppression by law enforcement (n = 6). Other

suggestions included providing youth with healthy role models (n = 4), vocational programs (n = 2), drug treatment (n = 2), and

religious involvement (n = 1). One prosecutor advocated employing more school resource officers and four prosecutors described the

need for a major societal shift, including providing more opportunities for lower income families and individuals.

Of the prosecutors that identified focusing on families as a way to prevent gangs, they perceived parents of gang members as ill

equipped and in need of major assistance. Some suggestions for improving family relationships included maintaining intact “traditional

families, encouraging and providing opportunities for one parent to remain in the home to supervise children (rather than work),

providing prenatal care and quality day care to parents, and instilling children with positive values, morals, and a sense o

responsibility. Along these lines, one prosecutor remarked:

I think that parents really need to take responsibility for their children instead of expecting everyone else to raise their children for

them, actually raise their children in a manner that shows their child that they love them and care about them, being involved in thei

life, expecting the child to behave and follow the rules and establishing consequences if the child doesn't. And if we don't do that from

the time that kids are very, very young, we're going to lose them. (Interview 11)

Respondents admitted that while targeting families may be the most important approach to stop gangs, changing poor parenting

techniques presents tremendous challenges. One prosecutor made this clear:

You would have to start back at the beginning and look at the programs and strengthen the family. Programs that strengthen the family

and again, it gets down to individual people who are having children who are no more concerned about a committed relationship or

being a father or a mother to that child. And how you get down to that very, very foundational level of human responsibility for you

children, I don't know. (Interview 27)

Several prosecutors (n = 6) who recommended prevention programs also mentioned spec ific programs that could be eithe

implemented or modified to target youth before they become exposed to gangs. For example, Head Start, Success By Six, the Boys

and Girls Club of America, and local programs called Reichert House and Pace School for Girls were all identified as positive

programs that may reduce youth gang involvement. Furthermore, engaging youth in sporting programs was also recommended as a

healthy way to encourage positive values. Although specific preventive programs were preferred by some prosecutors (n = 6), one

prosecutor recognized the difficulty in funding these programs:

One of the problems with funding prevention is that you can't – there are no results…There's no way to say that $10,000 saves this

community $250,000 or $2 million. So, I would encourage them [policymakers] that even though prevention is expensive and even

though there's no way to show your constituents that you did anything with their money that it's worth spending the money on

prevention to hopefully put us [prosecutors] all out of business. (Interview 4)

Education was listed by several prosecutors (n = 9) as an effective way to stop gangs, although most respondents did not identify

exactly what type of education would be necessary. One prosecutor specifically noted that education would not work to eliminate

gangs and, instead, considered the gang problem a more complex societal issue (e.g., this was partially supported by the evaluation of

the G.R.E.A.T. program byEsbensen, Osgood, et al., 2001). Of the respondents that discussed the benefits of education, one

advocated:













Public service announcements about venereal diseases, AIDS, contraception, responsibility, drugs. Show them the films that I've seen

about methamphetamine abuse before they get hooked on it. Show it to eight year olds. This idea that we can't tell eight year olds

about nasty stuff and sex and things is the biggest disservice we do because it's only through knowledge and education that anybody

will ever improve. (Interview 2)

Another prosecutor discussed the importance of teaching young gang members about alternatives to gang membership:

I would assume just education to let kids know that it's not necessary. It's not necessary that you join this group of people that doesn'

have any respect of the law…

We need people to go in and educate the kids that it's not necessary. You know the people they're goingto respect and the people that they're going to listen to. If it becomes uncool to be in a gang, then kids won't be in a gang. As long as

it's cool to be in a gang, that's what kids are going to do…So until someone convinces them that it's not cool to be in a gang or it's not

cool to do what gangs do, they're going to continue to do it. (Interview 17)

While law enforcement was mentioned by several prosecutors (n = 6) as a means of combating gangs, half seemed hesitant to

recommend this as a major solution. Three prosecutors advocated funding police to continue to control gangs, whereas three other

prosecutors speculated that police may help, but will not solve the problem alone. Another prosecutor specifically supported the use o

community policing as a short-term solution. One prosecutor indicated that law enforcement and harsh sanctions were not viable

options for reducing gangs:

Fear of law enforcement does not cause them [gangs] to fizzle out. So if we're thinking more guns, more [prison] bars, more walls,more cops, more state attorneys, that's the answer; it's probably not. It's a great band aid, on the back end of it. It's a fine band aid

But it's certainly not going to shut off the spigot to the proverbial system…You've got to get into the lower income [neighborhoods], the

housing projects, whatever it is and work to get those kids to not want to be gang members because they can have success

somewhere else. (Interview 14)

In sum, prosecutors identified a variety of practical policies and programs that might successfully reduce local gangs. Common

recommendations for stopping gangs included parenting assistance, prevention and early intervention programs for youth, education

and law enforcement/sanctions. Several programs already in place throughout the country, such as G.R.E.A.T., integrate a

combination of these concepts (Howell, 2000 and Klein & Maxson, 2006).

Discussion and conclusion

The purpose of this exploratory study was to understand prosecutors' perceptions of gangs. Open-ended interviews revealed severa

related themes including: (1) the definition and prevalence of gangs in Gainesville, Florida; (2) the personal and social characteristics

of gang members; (3) the reasons people join gangs; and (4) the best approaches to stop or eliminate gangs. The following details a

review and discussion of the findings and provides suggestions for future research in light of some of the current study's limitations.

Many prosecutors were either unsure of the prevalence of Gainesville gangs or believed these gangs to be relatively rare, while some

prosecutors disclosed that they dealt with gangs daily. Certainly, the case assignments of the prosecutors may have affected the

extent to which they interacted with or prosecuted gang members. Nonetheless, there was a consensus among prosecutors that

Gainesville is home to “hybrid” gangs, which they considered largely unorganized neighborhood-based groups with little structure who

identify as gangs. Notably, this is similar to prior research that characterizes hybrid gangs as new gangs (established since the 1980s

or 1990s) that typically do not embody the same characteristics of well-established gangs, such as structure and organization

(Starbuck et al., 2001). Nearly all prosecutors contrasted local gangs with national gangs, which they perceived as being organized

with a clear hierarchical structure. Interestingly, interviews conducted with members of national gangs within a large metropolitan

“emerging” gang city (St. Louis) revealed that gangs (including Bloods and Crips) also were loosely associated, neighborhood-based

and generally lacked “leaders, roles, or rules” (Decker, 1996, p. 250). As discussed earlier, prosecutors in Las Vegas also described

gangs as “simply loose, shifting associations without stable leadership, role expectations, or collective goals ” (McCorkle & Miethe

1998, p. 60). Consistent with the growing research on “emerging” gang cities, respondents expressed doubt about the level o

























organization and structure within local gangs (Decker & Curry, 2000, Esbensen et al., 1993, Huff, 2002 and Klein, 1995). Noticeably

prosecutors from the current study and gang members from large metropolitan cities described gangs almost identically to each other.

Yet, Gainesville prosecutors perceived local gangs as unrepresentative of big city gangs. Undoubtedly, investigating this disconnec

would be worthwhile for future research.

When identifying the personal characteristics of gang members, prosecutors mainly branded local gang members as young Black

males who lived in the disadvantaged neighborhoods primarily on the east side of the city. In terms of gang activities, a handful of

prosecutors recognized that gang members typically “hang out,” whereas all respondents believed gang members committed

delinquent and criminal activities. This finding is supported by prior research that indicates gang members primarily report socializing

with one another in addition to fighting and committing crime (Decker, 1996, Decker & VanWinkle, 1996, Joe & Chesney-Lind

1995, Klein, 1995 and Thornberry et al., 1993).

Prosecutors believed people joined gangs for a variety of reasons, although the most common responses included a desire to belong

to a group or to have friends, a lack of family support, and a lack of financial opportunities due to socioeconomic issues. This finding

appears to be only partially supported when compared to prior research. For example, interviews with gang members revealed that the

most common reasons for joining gangs were to meet or impress girls, importance among friends, importance and prevalence within

the neighborhood, family members belong to gangs, and boredom (Decker & Curry, 2000,Decker & VanWinkle, 1996 and Joe &

Chesney-Lind, 1995). Prosecutors in the current study and gang members in prior research reported that friends substantially

influenced decisions to join a gang. While prosecutors believed family and parenting problems as well as financial opportunities

influenced gang membership, these reasons were not mentioned by gang members in St. Louis (another “emerging” gang city). It is

possible that discussing family or economic problems is painful and socially undesirable among gang members. Prosecutors

suggestions regarding ways to stop gangs included providing help to parents and families, prevention and intervention youth

programs, education, and law enforcement. Prosecutors also recommended policy-oriented solutions to stopping gangs, whereas prior

research indicated gang members, maybe not surprisingly, recommended using violence to stop gangs (Decker, 1996).

While the current study is among the first to gain an understanding of prosecutorial perspectives of gangs, some limitations hampe

the ability to generalize the findings to other medium-sized emerging gang cities within the state or country. Due to the modest size of

the city of interest, the sample of prosecutors (n = 30) in this exploratory study is relatively small, although it constituted the majority of

prosecutors in the city (86 percent response rate). It is anticipated that future studies focusing on other medium-sized cities wil

encounter similar limitations on sample size, simply due to the smaller population of county prosecutors. Furthermore, the curren

study examined only the perceptions of prosecutors in a single location. Future research, therefore, might benefit from collecting data

from prosecutors and other criminal justice personnel (i.e., defense attorneys, law enforcement officers) in other medium-sized cities to

facilitate a comparison of findings with the current study, which may shed light on issues such as generalizability. It may also be

particularly important for future research to assess the source of the perceptions of gangs among prosecutors or other criminal justice

personnel (Decker & Kempf-Leonard, 1991). For example, prosecutors' perceptions may have been influenced by the types of cases

they personally prosecuted, the media, law enforcement, etc. Although the current study did not specifically inquire about the sources

of prosecutors' perceptions, which is a limitation of the data, prosecutors were asked to respond to the questions based on thei

experiences with the system. Additionally, in light of the recent surge in political concern about gangs within the state of Florida and

throughout the country,5 research focusing on large metropolitan cities may also contribute to an understanding of the national gang

problem.Despite the limitations, this study contributes to the extant literature on gangs by providing an understanding of prosecutors

perspectives of gangs in a medium-sized “emerging” gang city. In many ways, the prosecutors' perceptions of gangs reflect what has

been learned from research that directly examines gang members. While many of the prosecutors initially thought of big-city Bloods

and Crips when asked about gangs, their responses indicated that they clearly differentiated between the “stereotypical” gang

characteristics and the type of gangs present in Gainesville, Florida. Contrary to the characteristics of stereotypical big city gangs

(highly organized, clear hierarchical power structure), the prosecutors described Gainesville gangs as relatively unorganized, loosely

associated, and neighborhood-based (see Decker, 1996, Howell, 2000, Klein, 1995 and Klein & Maxson, 2006). Furthermore, many o

the prosecutors acknowledged that gang members primarily “hang out” and engage in non-criminal behaviors, which is contrary to


















































































stereotypical perceptions about gangs primarily engaging in violence, drug sales, and homicide. While prosecutors largely believed

that gang members were minority males, recent research focusing on gang members also indicated that gangs are still primarily male

and minority (Klein & Maxson, 2006). Perhaps one of the most important findings from the current study is that the prosecutors

generally confirm what prior research examining gangs has found.

Understanding the ways in which prosecutors' perceptions of gangs overlaps with the research that examines gang members is vita

for understanding prosecutors' responses and reactions to gang members, including their discretion of legal responses to gangs. Fo

example, prosecutors have the ability to decide whether to file charges against gang members, whether juvenile gang members are

prosecuted as adults, and (in many states) whether to pursue a grand jury indictment or preliminary examination (Holder, Robinson, &

Slowikowski, 2009). As such, prosecutors have a tremendous amount of control over important aspects of the prosecution, including

whether hearsay is permitted (e.g., preliminary examination) or whether witnesses identities are protected (e.g., grand jury). In terms

of jury selection, prosecutors may have the ability to ask potential jurors about their knowledge, attitudes, and personal experiences

about gangs, which allows the prosecutor some control over the punitiveness of the selected jury members (Holder et al., 2009). In

addition to determining the nature and severity of the charges, prosecutors may also charge gang members with a variety of additional

crimes, such as aiding and abetting the commission of a crime (e.g., encourages the crime, has knowledge of the crime, or facilitates

the crime) and conspiracy liability (e.g., two or more people agree to commit a crime). Finally, prosecutors have discretion over the

sentencing consequences that they recommend for gang members, which may largely depend on the type of charges filed, but also in

terms of when the sentence is imposed (e.g., suspend the imposition of the sentence, suspend the execution of the sentence, or

immediately impose and execute the sentence) (Holder et al., 2009). In light of the considerable amount of discretion prosecutors have

over the prosecution of gang members, it is vital to understand prosecutors' perceptions of gang members. Certainly, if prosecutors

held misperceptions about gang members, the practical implications for the criminal justice system could be detrimental. Overall, this

research provides an important step toward expanding and increasing the qualitative understanding of prosecutors' perceptions o

gangs generally and in emerging areas specifically.



















perceptions of gangs among prosecutors in an emerging gang city.pdf

Documents