mrph: (Default)
mrph ([personal profile] mrph) wrote2007-02-18 01:11 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry

(no subject)

So...

Part of Tony Blair's reaction to recent shootings is to consider criminalising gang membership. Right. Ok.

Somehow I feel that this might be tricky to prove/disprove/enforce.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] nils.livejournal.com 2007-02-18 01:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Does Labour party membership count?
diffrentcolours: (Default)

[personal profile] diffrentcolours 2007-02-18 02:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Nah, just those criminal Tories and Liberal Democrats who are plotting to overthrow Her Majesty's Government...

[identity profile] the-maenad.livejournal.com 2007-02-18 01:36 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, surely all the police need to do is ask the gang's honorable secretary for a copy of the computer file with the membership list of names, addresses, street nicknames and graffiti tags?

This will only pose problems for the occasional technologically subnormal gangs who still maintain their membership rosters on a card file system.
zotz: (Default)

[personal profile] zotz 2007-02-18 01:40 pm (UTC)(link)
Don't see why. People get done for conspiracy all the time. Whether it's desirable is . . . debatable at best, but I don't see why it couldn't happen.

[identity profile] mrph.livejournal.com 2007-02-18 04:10 pm (UTC)(link)
But conspiracy involves intent to commit or more crimes, doesn't it? And the crimes in question are (hopefully) already well defined by the law.

With this, I think there are two issues - firstly, proving that someone is "a member" of a gang. Which I think is an issue that already applies to other banned organisarions, so it something they presumably have some experience with. But still...

Secondly, what's the legal definition of a "gang"? Does it need gang colours, a name, a defined leader, a history of criminal activity?

How do you define it in a way that's useful but can't be abused to target "gangs" that aren't really gangs at all?
zotz: (Default)

[personal profile] zotz 2007-02-18 04:38 pm (UTC)(link)
There are already proscribed organisations that have no formal membership. It doesn't look to me like any great step onwards from that in legal terms. It's a rather bigger one in social terms, of course.

[identity profile] mrph.livejournal.com 2007-02-18 05:46 pm (UTC)(link)
But that's the second point, surely? The proscribed organisations are banned on a one-by-one basis. Each one has some sort of name, aims, other features that identify them...

...defining "gangs" in those terms seems just a little trickier, social impact aside.
zotz: (Default)

[personal profile] zotz 2007-02-18 08:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it would be a problem. Blair used to be a trial lawyer, remember. Whether or not it would be a good idea, he has some professional insight into whether it would be arguable in court.

gangs aren`t that hard to spot

[identity profile] markeris.livejournal.com 2007-02-19 03:09 pm (UTC)(link)
anyone driving around in a VW camper with a talking dog, particularly if there are 4 of them and one has a straggly beard and makes huge sandwiches for instance, should be shot on sight. People with red hands as well. bang them right up.

[identity profile] inbetween-girl.livejournal.com 2007-02-18 03:14 pm (UTC)(link)
No it won't, because it will say on a person's ID card what gangs they belong to. I was going to sign this off with a smiley, but on second thoughts, it isn't actually all that funny.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only