If crime is not the problem, crime fighting is no solution: policing gang violence in the age of abolition

Abstract

Purpose In their 1999 classic, Crime is Not the Problem, Zimring and Hawkins changed the way criminologists thought about crime and violence simply by forcing us to distinguish between them. In so doing, they advanced an agenda for a more effective response to the real “crime” problem in America – violence. In this short commentary, the authors apply this logic to gang research and responses. The authors argue police fall short in responding to “gangs” because researchers and policymakers have defined them in terms of criminal behaviour writ large, not the problem that really needs policing – the precise social and spatial dynamics of gang violence. The purpose of this paper is to stand on the shoulders of others who have stated violence trumps gangs when it comes to policy and practice and provide a conceptual review of the literature that captures mainstream and critical perspectives on gangs and offers both sides some common ground to start from as they contemplate “policing” gangs with or without police. Design/methodology/approach A review of the extant literature. Findings The authors stand on the shoulders of others who have stated violence trumps gangs when it comes to policy and practice, to provide a conceptual review of the literature that captures mainstream and critical perspectives on gangs, in North American and European contexts, and offers both sides some common ground to start from as they contemplate “policing” gangs with or without police. Originality/value The paper is a conceptual piece looking at policing gang violence versus gang crime. The paper aims to restart the debate around the role of crime in gangs and gangs in crime. This debate centres around whether gangs should be understood as primarily criminal groups, whether “the gang” is to blame for the crime and violence of its members and what feature of collective crime and violence designate “gangness”. We use that debate to reflect past and current police practices towards gangs.

Understanding gangs: Developing an epistemically pluralist framework for gang research

“…Violence is often considered to be one of the most prototypical characteristics of gangs and gang membership (Decker, 1996;Decker & Van Winkle, 1996;Felson, 2006;Melde & Esbensen, 2013;Van Hellemont & Densley, 2021). Violence is suggested to play a role in many aspects of gang life, and gangs themselves are commonly considered to be one part of a wider culture of violence (Durán, 2013;Hagedorn, 1998;Lauger, 2012;Rios, 2011;Vigil, 2003).…”

“…For instance, issues relating to the tautology of including criminality within a gang definition have been dismissed by the justification that crime is not the only outcome that gang researchers seek to investigate, and that when researchers do investigate crime this is usually done so in a more specific manner (e.g., violence, drug offending, see Klein & Maxson, 2006). Similarly, problems with gangs as a group-level construct are avoided by focusing on individual gang members (e.g., Esbensen, Winfree et al, 2001;Decker et al, 2014) or gang behaviours (e.g., McLean et al, 2020;Van Hellemont & Densley, 2021) as the units of analysis. Additionally, problems with the term "gang" are averted through the substitution of alternative terms (e.g., "troublesome youth groups", see Weerman et al, 2009).…”

“…Accordingly, while such groups and their members may meet Eurogang definitional criteria, 18 they are not typically considered gangs and are seldom the focus of gang study (Klein, 2014). Instead, researchers tend to concentrate on groups that they consider more prototypically gang-like (e.g., groups which engage in higher levels of violence; as violence is considered prototypical of gangs, Decker, 1996;Decker & Van Winkle, 1996;Felson, 2006;Melde & Esbensen, 2013;Van Hellemont & Densley, 2021). If such groups are being conceptually distinguished from street gangs, despite meeting the same definition, it is evident that researchers are in practice employing alternative gang concepts to that facilitates the elucidation of intrapersonal and/or interpersonal processes of psychological relevance?…”

“…However, such a suggestion would introduce concerns that researchers were measuring different constructs, 29 thus undermining the Eurogang objectives of engaging in comparative crosscontextual research (Weerman et al, 2009). Similarly, Van Hellemont and Densley (2021) endorse a view of gangs as violent groups rather than criminal groups. For such an endorsement to be accommodated under a unificatory framework of gang research, current definitions would require a conceptual overhaul in line with this new perspective.…”

“…With the high stakes placed upon the success of the Eurogang Program for progressing gang research, any potential concerns with the Program should be examined critically. In recent years, a number of critiques have been levelled at the Eurogang Program and its practices (e.g., the Eurogang definition, positivist/empiricist foundations, overidentification of gang members; Aldridge et al, 2012Aldridge et al, , 2013Hagedorn, 2015;Hallsworth & Young, 2008;Medina et al, 2013;Rodríguez et al, 2017;Smithson et al, 2012;Van Hellemont & Densley, 2021). Further, the Eurogang Program is an example of an attempt to coordinate researchers through means of unification, i.e., collaboration through the establishment of consensus concepts, definitions, methods, methodologies, and/or explanations (Friedman, 1974;Kitcher, 1981Kitcher, , 1989Schurz, 1999;Schurz & Lambert, 1994).…”