Increasing sentences is a common knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of things, but it doesn’t usually play out the way people think. Humans are complex, and longer sentences usually result in higher crime rates in society. Which seems to defeat the point.
I think a better solution would be to develop some kind of RICO Act-like legislation, with various changes to avoid some of the strange ways it’s been used in the US. The RICO Act destroyed the Mob’s stranglehold on America, and has been used successfully to eliminate gangs and other criminal organisations since.
Essentially it would be a law that allows leaders of criminal gangs to be charged with the actions of its members, or a prohibition on being a leader of a gang. These kinds of laws allow the police to simply establish someone is the leader then put them in jail. When they are inevitably replaced, the next leader is taken out too. As this continues, being the next leader will be very unattractive, and with the good leaders gone, the organisation falls to pieces.
Cool idea!
I’m keen to hear more about the “strange ways it’s been used in the US”!
Also, I’m wondering if the US has seen changes in how gangs structure themselves or loopholes to avoid this issue? What about abuse by the police (e.g. what’s the level of proof needed to show you’re the gang leader)?
The RICO Act itself is strange. An organisation must engage in two or more “racketeering activities” within 10 years. It’s a long list of pretty much all serious crimes. It’s in the RICO predicate offences section of the Wikipedia page.
If an organisation is in violation of the Act, any member can be charged with any of those offences committed by any other member. The idea is to use that pressure to get them to turn on the leaders. It also means they can go after anyone they think is really in charged. But it’s up to prosecutors to make sure only those most responsible are charged.
It’s far too broad of a definition, in my opinion. And it’s too open to corruption and interpretation. If we were to enact something similar here, those details would need to change.
I’m keen to hear more about the “strange ways it’s been used in the US”!
Because the definition is so broad, it’s been used to go after members of regular corporations, like FIFA and a healthcare provider. Whether or not those people deserved to be charged, it goes way beyond the intended scope of the law.
Interesting, thanks for the reply!
If an organisation is in violation of the Act, any member can be charged with any of those offences committed by any other member. The idea is to use that pressure to get them to turn on the leaders. It also means they can go after anyone they think is really in charged. But it’s up to prosecutors to make sure only those most responsible are charged.
It also sounds like the leaders can set things up from the beginning to falsely point at a fall guy?
I think the point is to go after the leaders rather than the henchmen who will just be replaced.
Usually it’s not too hard to establish who the leader is, even if it’s not always easy to prove. I imagine that’s another reason they’re allowed to go after any member.
I’m thinking more like having a 2IC acting as the boss, giving orders, all the henchmen think they are the leader when actually he’s got the real leader whispering orders to him in secret.
Maybe I’ve been watching too much TV!
I’ve never heard of that. But if they did it right, I guess we’d never know.
In theory it wouldn’t matter. There are only so many people you can have able to act as the leader. If you took out the 2IC and another took their place so you got them as well, etc. Then you’d likely disrupt the organisation even if you didn’t get the true leader - and one of the 2ICs might sell out the boss for a deal so you’d probably find out about them eventually.
I was pondering a while ago… are gangs terrorist organisations?
It’s already illegal to be a terrorist, and gangs are certainly more than just a club.
If a club’s dominant activities are illegal, violent, and lethal… what’s the difference?
There’s no universally agreed on definition of terrorism, but I think the key difference is that terrorists commit violence for things like ideaology, politics, religion, and asserting racial superiority. Gangs commit violence for things like cash, pride, drugs, notoriety and cred. But both use intimidation and violence to achieve their goals.
That’s how I see it anyway.
Good points.
I was kind of lumping in anti-government and anti-social/-society behaviour into politics and ideology.
Intimidation and the threat of significant violence against entire groups (i.e. families, households, businesses, other gangs) are commonalities. Fear of violence is the main deal.
Drugs/theft etc is just fundraising.
