The New York Times recently ran an article about how murder rates are increasing in smaller US cities. The usual culprits of gangs and drugs are not cited as being at the root of this increase in violence. Rather, many of these murders tend to be perpetrated by acquaintances when ordinary disputes between them arise.
It's an unfortunate trend, and one that likely has several causes, each of which exacerbates the other. The article mentions the proliferation of guns as being one of them. Guns, they say, are easier to come by, so more people have them. However, their general availability does not address the apparent inclination people seem to have to use them in order to resolve their disputes.
The article indicates that the population most associated with this trend is that of young blacks with criminal records. Given that young blacks typically have vastly higher rates of incarceration than other populations, one could infer that young blacks have some sort of innate predisposition to violence. But I think this inference is incorrect. Rather, the higher rate of incarceration reflects a cause of the violence, rather than an effect of it.
An important thing to recognize is that incarceration rates are largely affected by many factors endemic to poorer, more marginalized people. Whether it is the very definition of crime itself, which inherently captures more behaviors of certain people (like the stiffer criminalization of crack cocaine, a drug more common among blacks, than powder cocaine, a drug more common among whites), inadequate access to quality representation during criminal proceedings (generally of less concern to wealthier people), or simply the lack of education and employment opportunities that can encourage people to make better choices, factors such as these go far to explain why more young blacks end up in prison than whites.
The effect of this disparity ultimately affects their communities in two significant ways: firstly, by having so many people in the community who have experienced the harsher quid-pro-quo of life in prison, where the ability and willingness to stand up for yourself may be a necessary survival mechanism, this culture may persist outside the prison walls, and, secondly, it results in many people feeling alienated from the court system.
It's this alienation that I think it most responsible for these violent trends. The court system exists as a way to defuse conflict, without requiring the parties to resort to more violent means to do it. If someone does you wrong, you don't take matters into your own hands: you sue them. Towards this end we have entire bodies of law devoted to defining when a wrong has occurred and providing redress when one has.
Naturally there can be problems when people become too litigious. The courts are not appropriate for all forms of conflict resolution. But it is still better to have some sort of institutional approach to diffusing tension than to leave the parties with nothing but their own forms of vigilante justice to create their own remedies.
Of course, even in the absence of institutional dispute resolution, a good old fistfight might suffice. Killings may still be a disproportionate response. But then again, it is a matter of culture to determine what is a proportionate response. And though American hegemony no longer considers killing to be appropriate, it has in the past. Just see the example of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, when, during their time, it was considered acceptable for the former vice president of the United States to engage in a lethal duel.
That these kinds of duels have become unacceptable is because they've similarly become unnecessary since, with the rise of American jurisprudence, other, effective (and less lethal) means for solving conflicts have become available.
The problem is, in these more marginalized populations, these other means for resolving conflicts are not available as any sort of practical alternative. In fact, they may realistically not be seen as any alternative at all. First of all, for people who ended up in jail the last time they saw the inside of a court room, judicial proceedings may have little legitimacy to them. And even if they were seen as legitimate, they are likely not seen as an accessible avenue for resolving a dispute.
The fact of the matter is that it takes a lot of resources to be able to use the court system. Not just financial, but also informational. Yet this population is not one known for being flush with either. Even assuming that basic literacy were not a barrier - which is a big "if" given the quality of the education available to them - laws and legal procedures are so cryptic as to require specialists to navigate them. Specialists - lawyers - whose services are extremely, often impossibly, expensive to obtain.
The effect of all these informational and financial barriers is that the court system is likely not perceived as an available alternative for solving conflicts. So in the absence of this better alternative, people will take matters into their own hands. With apparently deadly consequences.
We - the rest of society - could react by lambasting these people, throwing up our hands in unempathetic exasperation, either leaving them to wipe themselves out or reaching into their communities to prosecute them further. But none of these measures will actually solve the problem because it doesn't address the systemic realities that cause this kind of violence to happen in the first place.
A better solution - an actual solution - would be to make sure that there are more productive means of conflict resolution available within these communities. One possible way to achieve this end could be to have community dispute resolution boards, where juries made up of people in the community could sit in review of disputes to determine some remedy. These boards would only need to be as formal as necessary to grant them some authority and cohesive structure. What's most important is that they be seen as legitimate by the people whose issues they will adjudicate, and that they be easily accessible to these people - something that the existing court system is not.
Obviously these boards would need to work consistently with state laws. They couldn't, for instance, reach results that departed from existing law or denied due process. But just as the court system tolerates and works with other systems of alternative dispute resolution like mediation and arbitration, so it should be able to work with these sorts of community-based ADR systems and provide a realistic alternative dispute resolution system to the one being used now: guns.
Edit 2/26: I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but in a related vein, here's a paper that addresses incarceration rates and their consequences on the community: Reciprocal Effects of Crime and Incarceration in New York City Neighborhoods.
Comments (13)
I can't say that I really know enough about the communities that have a gun-violence problem to suggest a solution. However, one quote in this article did jump out at me:
"When we ask, 'Why did you shoot this guy?' it's, 'He bumped into me,' 'He looked at my girl the wrong way,' " said Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson of Philadelphia. "It's not like they're riding around doing drive-by shootings. It's arguments — stupid arguments over stupid things."
I'm not sure that the availability of ADR would work in these cases. After all, "bumping" and "girl-looking" sound pretty non-justiciable to me. And if you start creating citizen panels with remedies to these sorts of disputes (perhaps stay away-- or look away-- orders), don't you now have a real enforcement problem, since someone, perhaps the police and the normal criminal system, would need to enforce these orders.
This isn't to say that a community ADR system would be totally unhelpful-- only to say that it doesn't sound like the root cause solution to violence that you present it as.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 18, 2006 6:10 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 18:10
I think both the justiciability and enforcement issues would solve themselves as long as the the community felt the ADR process was legitimate. With respect to justiciability, the alleging party clearly feels there has been a wrong and is seeking redress. If he believes the process can provide that for him, he will avail himself of it. As for enforcement, the offending party would probably vastly prefer a consequence meted out by the ADR process to getting shot.
Of course, the most important thing is that everyone believe the process is legitimate. It won't work if either party thinks it is getting a raw deal if the board does not resolve in its favor.
Posted by Cathy | February 18, 2006 6:27 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 18:27
Wouldn't this largely duplicate what is availble in small claims court? And small claims court includes a whole lot less "ifs" (ie will you be able to find volunteers to be on the panel? will people respect the panel? will the panel stay within reasonable legal bounds?)...
Posted by Mark | February 18, 2006 6:32 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 18:32
By the way-- you did say that the lack of judicial remedies was a principal cause of increased violence:
"The effect of this disparity ultimately affects their communities in two significant ways: ...secondly, it results in many people feeling alienated from the court system.
It's this alienation that I think it most responsible for these violent trends..."
Personally-- I'm not sure that I agree with this conclusion... But as a fairly well-off local government attorney who lives on the Westside of LA, I feel pretty confident that I don't really have a clue as to what does or doesn't really cause violence within poorer communities. So I guess I have to defer to your judgement.
Posted by Mark | February 18, 2006 6:42 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 18:42
I've edited out the first line of my last comment since I'm not able to better make my point.
Small claims court is something entirely different to this. It's still pretty cryptic to navigate, it's governed by a single judge not connected with the particular community, and it would never hear cases on perceived personal sleights. The advantage of a community board is that it could help give people guidance on how to resolve these kinds of issues that they aren't getting from any other source.
Posted by Cathy | February 18, 2006 7:06 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 19:06
Cathy,
You've suggested a legal system remedy but forgotten that the bulk of the violence resulting in death (not just a beating but an attempted/successful murder) is in some form gang related. What legal mechanism do you suggest for the dispute resolution of one drug dealer against another in a turf war? Or for the presence on a gang member in the territory of another gang? Or perhaps (as referenced in an earlier comment but is actually rarely deadly), for looking at the wrong woman?
I argue the root of these problems is the economic reality many poor (especially black) people live with few perceived options but some sort of illegal lifestyle. The legal system cannot provide a resolution either side will accept for a dispute over a legal activity (looking at the wrong woman) or where both sides are engaged in illegal activity (drug business dispute). Perhaps focusing on the socioeconomic issues that leave these people with few (perceived or real) options.
Decriminalizing drugs would be a great start... the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate drugs anyway. The recent SCOTUS decision regarding federal regulation of drugs that do not cross state lines is just another constitutional abomination that gives me little hope the existing government will ever correct itself.
On the local side, the overwhelming majority of severe violence in our area is highly geographically concentrated (parts of dorchester and mattapan) but Mumbles Menino and the various police chiefs in Boston have no solutions except to throw up their arms and blame the 'proliferation of guns' and have no solutions except to add more gun laws (one more constitutional abomination; the decision by the SJC is mind boggling) that will somehow prevent those who mean to kill from possessing that which they already illegally possess and then committing a heinous act that most of us cannot comprehend (taking another human life when you are not in mortal danger). Simultaneously breaking the gang culture and providing real educational and economic opportunities is the only way to change this culture.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Cathy but I think this post is one that perhaps represents being too deep in your education and forgetting to pull back and consider the motivations of those commiting these acts.
Posted by Jon | February 19, 2006 6:37 AM
Posted on February 19, 2006 06:37
> I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Cathy but I think this post is one that perhaps represents being too deep in your education and forgetting to pull back and consider the motivations of those commiting these acts.
It seems to me that is exactly what I was doing.
Moreover, it seems that what I was proposing is very similar to what you might - an alternative to a legal system imposed upon the community from outside of it, in a way that may not be legitimate (see eg drug laws), and start empowering the community to solve its problems from within.
Posted by Cathy | February 19, 2006 7:03 AM
Posted on February 19, 2006 07:03
I think what Jon is trying to say is that to most people on the street, especially those who've grown up with the gang mentality, violent acts are a way of gaining respect and asserting your manliness. Are you really suggesting that the Crips and Bloods (or any other criminal organization or person) would listen to what to an informal varient of the legal system?
In my opinion, Jon is much more closer to the solution of solving the crime problem - education and economy - than you are. He actually refers to the cause of crime rather than the effects of it.
Posted by Dave | February 19, 2006 8:15 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 20:15
What Jon is proposing and I'm proposing are not mutually exclusive. I'm not suggesting we don't develop local economies and educational opportunities. Of course we should do that too.
But in a meantime, the community is lacking effective means for solving its disputes. And yes, I am saying that the community would respond to an informal varient of the legal system because it would be THEIR informal varient, not one imposed by them. I mean, yeah, the larger city government could help set them up to give them some structure, but ultimately these fora would be one made up of their own community members, whose judgment would reflect the norms of the community.
I haven't done a lot of research into this, but to my knowledge these kinds of things do exist. I've heard about them in schools, where juries of students adjudicate disputes between members of the student community. Now, yeah, we could work all their problems in the court system - assuming the conflicts are even justicable - but ultimately it's much more efficient and legitimate to handle them within their community.
By the way, re: gangs, an excellent book to read is Islands in the Street. It was written by a Berkeley sociology professor who embedded himself in a gang and then wrote about what he learned from the experience. The point he made is that gangs themselves ARE a type of community self-help. They don't exist because of some latent evilness; they sprout up to take care of problems that society at large has otherwise failed to address.
What I'm advocating is simply another form of community self-help, but one where violence could be avoided in both the resolution and remedy of a conflict. I think this is possible, and I don't see why there should be resistence to it.
Posted by Cathy | February 20, 2006 5:46 AM
Posted on February 20, 2006 05:46
The question, then, is whether these courts would have teeth... In other words, would their orders be enforcable under law, or would they only be binding in a theoretical/moral sense.
If the orders don't have teeth (at least with respect to partipants who consent to their jurisdiction), then I think it would be a tall order to expect widespread compliance amongst folks who loose their actions.
If the courts do have teeth, then I think this would create a huge burden on law enforcement and the formal courts, not to mention all sorts of potential due process issues resulting from the creativity of the community panels in forming remedies and the unusual nature of the disputes.
My guess is that the reasons why the student courts work is because (i) a lot of these "courts" are really diversionary programs from school discipline proceedings, and therefore are backed by the weight of a real system of penalties (ie the cases are quasi-criminal, not quasi-tort) and (ii) with respect to the "civil" actions, the kids participating in them are so excited to be in "kids court" that they respect its novelty. This kind of thing might work for kids who consent to jurisdiction on minor matters. And they certainly might stop a fistfight. But I doubt that they will work quite as well for adults with respect to matters that they would otherwise believe justifies lethal violence.
Additionally, kids courts are carefully controlled by administrators (or the real judicial system) to avoid abuses of power or cases that are too explosive to be handled in this manner. What would be the equivilant check on a community court.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 20, 2006 3:26 PM
Posted on February 20, 2006 15:26
Basically, it's not necessary to make community-based ADR look like courts; a better approach would likely be to model it on arbitration, perhaps even letting it be non-binding. People do still abide by non-binding decisions if they believe they were legitimately arrived at. Plus just going through the exercise of having their viewpoint heard can itself diffuse the conflict. The result is not so important as the process that arrives at it.
Posted by Cathy | February 20, 2006 4:09 PM
Posted on February 20, 2006 16:09
I think one key differentiation in my interpretation of Cathy's belief here and my view of the real world is that your suggested ADR assumes that the participants are interested in a fair outcome and simply lack the process to arrive at it. If this were true then I think the ADR could have a place - however, in the bulk of the more violent crimes referenced above, I don't agree this is true. When a business or gang chooses to encroach on another's turf, steal some of their goods, assault some of their members - they often don't do it out of a need for a 'just' solution but rather as a business or social tool to take what they want or to exert power/influence over others.
Posted by Jon | February 21, 2006 9:04 AM
Posted on February 21, 2006 09:04
MAYBE with gangs it's an issue of asserting power. But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about gang fighting, we're talking about people who are trying to resolve interpersonal conflicts and, as you say, "simply lack the process" to do so.
Posted by Cathy | February 21, 2006 10:18 AM
Posted on February 21, 2006 10:18