(no subject)

[mrph]

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.

Comments

[mrph.livejournal.com]

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]

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.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

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]

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

[markeris.livejournal.com]

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.