Why anti-patch policies backfire—and what would actually work

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Why anti-patch policies backfire—and what would actually work



Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Despite the connection between institutional harm and gang membership made clear in this week’s mammoth royal commission

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, the government seems unlikely to soften its “get tough on ******” policies.

Since taking office last year, the coalition has moved quickly to make good on its election promises. As well as reintroducing

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

and bringing back the

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, its crackdown on gangs is well underway.

The

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

seeks to make gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing, ban gang patches from public spaces, and restrict gang members’ right to congregate in public or communicate with each other. A specialized

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

will focus on enforcing those policies.

All of this will cost money. When a new offense (such as violating the patch ban or a non-consorting order) is added to the

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, more must be spent on policing, courts and prisons.

Taxpayers may approve of such additional government spending if the policies work. But the research evidence suggests these costly anti-gang measures may well have the opposite of the desired effect.

How anti-gang policies backfire

The government

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

banning gang patches and giving police more dispersal powers will “restore law and order” and reduce ******. But there is no research evidence to support these claims.

As *********** gang law expert Mark Lauchs has noted, there is

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

that “gang-busting” legislation reduces gang-related ******. Some suggest such measures may simply push ********* activity further underground.

It seems counterintuitive, but there is also evidence of anti-gang policies actually increasing offending, due to the increased contact between police, gang members and their whānau (extended family).

As one

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

recently found, “********* justice involvement increases rather than decreases ********* behavior.” The study surveyed individuals at high risk of offending over a ******* of 30 years. One group was exposed to frequent police contact, while the other was not. The former group reported committing more ******* than the latter.

The researchers concluded contact with police “labels” individuals as **********, who then act according to the label. Simply put, frequent police contact can mean more ******* being committed. More ******* also mean more people being victimized.

The risk in New Zealand extends to increased police contact not only with patched gang members but also with

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

caught up in surveillance operations or investigations.

In 2021, police were found to have illegally obtained tens of thousands of photographs of young Māori, including “non-voluntary” pictures (taken without consent or knowledge)

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

. The police then

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

to delete the images.

In sum, the research evidence suggests the current government approach may in fact perpetuate the “gang problem” it seeks to solve. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence and expert knowledge—both academic and “grassroots”—that could inform better policy.

What expert knowledge can offer

Gang members, their whānau, and organizations that provide social support for so-called hard-to-reach communities have extensive experience with previous government gang policies.

These non-academic experts know what works, fails and backfires. But their vast institutional knowledge continues to be ignored or dismissed by policymakers.

In our recently published

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

of the Decolonization of Criminology and Justice

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, we showcase the more nuanced understandings these expert voices have to offer.

Among them are Harry Tam, ****** Wilkinson and Joanna Wilkinson from

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

, a social support provider focused on community-led solutions. They

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

how gangs originally formed in response to structural racism in postwar New Zealand, as outlined in this week’s royal commission ******-in-care report.

Successive governments met the rapid urban migration of Māori with policies that left them disadvantaged in all aspects of life: housing, education, employment and social support. Thousands of Māori children were uplifted and systematically abused in state care.

The survivors, deprived of whānau and cultural connections, naturally formed support groups—later to become the Mongrel Mob and ****** Power gangs. The members of these organizations behaved, unsurprisingly, in ways that reflected the multifaceted harms inflicted on them.

Instead of addressing the causes, governments focused on the symptoms. They labeled survivors “gang members” and sought to monitor, suppress and criminalize gang activity.

But this response—central to the current government’s approach—******* to arrest the growth in gang membership or offending by those involved.

Evidence as the basis of policy

Also in our journal edition, authors Sonny Fatupaito, Paula Ormsby and Steve Elers

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

into the whakapapa (genealogy) and meaning of the gang “patch” or insignia.

They explain how the patch evolved from a stylized symbol of aggression and confrontation to a “

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

” (cloak) symbolizing a transition from problematic past behaviors such as ********* and ***** offending toward rehabilitation and positive community engagement.

The authors offer a counter to perceptions of the patch as intimidating. Misrepresenting or ignoring this cultural shift, they argue, effectively obscures significant changes in gang identity and culture over the past 20 years.

The lack of engagement with this kind of expert knowledge has enabled governments to dominate public commentary on gangs and sideline scholars and practitioners who work with gang whānau.

We argue the current anti-gang policies will not reduce ******, but are likely to further alienate hard-to-reach communities.

Policies informed by evidence and expert knowledge would not only result in better understanding of gangs and the patch, they would also be more effective in protecting the interests of the public in general.

Provided by
The Conversation

This article is republished from

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

under a Creative Commons license. Read the

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

.

Citation:
Gang crackdown: Why anti-patch policies backfire—and what would actually work (2024, July 26)
retrieved 26 July 2024
from

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#antipatch #policies #backfireand #work

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

For verified travel tips and real support, visit: https://hopzone.eu/