In group homes of some sort, I presume? The kids will form gangs in those group homes.
One problem with gangs is, they have people in them who make joining a gang look attractive. They have to. A gang that didn’t have such people, and that engaged in the dangerous activities that gangs typically do, would soon die out as its members died or went to prison. If you take people who can make joining a gang look good and send them away from their gang, they can form a new gang in their new environment.
Instilling incorruptibility in people is hard. (If it weren’t, there would be a lot less corruption in human history than there is) It’s even harder with kids who have the kind of problems that are typical of kids who join gangs. There just aren’t a lot of people who can do that, either as foster parents or as state employees.
Some kids like being in gangs, too. But if we’re trying to prevent future criminal activity among these kids, the results of the Stolen Generation don’t make it look like this is the way to do it.
Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Town_(Organization) Also those who do abuse the kids will be punished possibly with chemical castration (NOT the same as regular castration more of a drug to control hormones) or long terms in prison.
You make a good point. Perhaps for teamwork kids from rival gangs should be forced to work together . Of course if they fight or perhaps kill each other they will be punished without mercy. Also a lot of them will be younger kids who haven’t been exposed too much to gangs yet.
And what exactly is punishment without mercy? 23 hours a day in solitary confinement? Hard labor breaking rocks with a pickaxe? Waterboarding? 40 licks with a wet noodle?
Well some punishment some parents already do (like corporal punishment) and as I am positing that these kids are wards of the state, it wouldn’t be like public school teachers spanking children. Also I mean in extreme cases when these kids fight violently with each other (not just your usual fist fights but gang type of fights) and mostly to the older ones say thirteen and up.
I guess the answer to the thread title is, there is not easy answer to gangs. Taking children away from their parents, unless their parents are abusive or neglectful, isn’t humane. Why not try to change public policy so that gangs aren’t as attractive? For example, ending the war on drugs and instituting a sane and rational drug policy for America? That would be a lot more effective than breaking up families and having government employees dole out corporal punishment to children.
Really? I don’ t think so. The United States has the highest prison population in the world. A major contributing factor to this is America’s drug policy. If the gang problem is bad enough for you to be suggesting such draconian and inhumane solutions, why not look at drug policy reform? It’s not a war we’re winning, and there are casualties that are not immediately apparent, like the kids you are interested in saving. If you are interested in ending gangs, you have to cut off their supply of money. Legalization and government regulation are a way to do this. Why is this an outrageous idea, but incarceration rates like those cited are OK? I don’t get it.
What does that have to do with anything? As for the majority of people being opposed to it, well, you didn’t ask for popular solutions, you asked for easy ones.
You’re asking about shutting down gangs. Why do gangs exist? How is it that they have so much money, and thus are attractive to kids? Drugs. If you want to get rid of gangs, end their primary source of funding. The War on Drugs tried one way, and failed. Legalization is a way that has not been tried yet, but which seems like it would work. But no, we’d rather spend ridiculous sums of money on law enforcement and incarceration, rather than face the fact that the War on Drugs is not working, gangs are still thriving, and there’s lots of collateral damage.
Or, you can go back to draconian measures, fantasies about taking children of color away from their parents and giving them to nice [del]white[/del] wholesome Midwestern families, corporal punishment, etc. I’m offering a solution to the problem, you’re not willing to consider it. OK.
Are you talking to me? Because I don’t see the word “evil” anywhere in my post. My assertions are as supported as any of the OP’s wild ass ideas, if not moreso. If you want more cites, ask for them instead of just creating straw men and rolling your eyes. OP asked a question, I offered a solution. He doesn’t like it, I don’t his ideas either. So be it.
Let me just get this straight. Curtis is talking about taking thousands of kids from their parents, en masse, interning them in collective environments for raising children (creches), and expects this to eliminate gangs.
…
Is it me, or… do you see a whole new generation of gangs coming from this idea? Not to mention, of course, the amazingly huge legal difficulties of just stealing kids from parents because of where they live.
Look, the health costs of millions of people using drugs like cocaine, heroin, LSD, and meth especially their addiction will outweigh much of the law enforcement cost. And that’s not considering the human cost. How many people will die early from being addicted to cocaine or heroin? How many people will go on rampages from consuming LSD?
Look most of these kids’ parents are abusive, neglectful, or just aren’t present at all. Many of these kids prowl the streets without homes. It would mercy for us to take them and give them a good education in a crime-free environment, three square meals, and a bed and bathroom.
Why do we have a problem with drugs? Because people are already using them, despite them being illegal. People are already dying from them, and as collateral damage in the crossfire generated by the illegal drug trade. And I think you know very little about LSD.
There will ALWAYS be a demand for drugs. The problem is that the supply of these drugs is coming from organized crime organizations, with all the attendant violence and social disintegration. Do you know what the law enforcement cost of the war on drugs is? What about the cost of the criminal justice system and incarceration? Until you can prove to me that it would be more expensive for the government to legalize hard drugs, tax them, and the use the money for rehabilitation, plus the savings from fewer incarcerations AND better use of law enforcement’s time and energy, then I don’t think I have to take your word for it. I don’t honestly think you’ve done a cost/benefit analysis and are just making assumptions.
Do you have a cite for this either? Have you thought about the legalities and logistics of a mass removal of children from families? Not to mention the cost?
Look I took the moderate, perhaps even a liberal stance of saying that I will tolerate (though will not vote for) heavily taxed and regulated marijuana legalized. Also more people will used hard drugs if they’re legal, I’m pretty sure there are a lot of people who’d like nothing more then several bong hits a day but don’t buy them for fear of being involved with organized crime or being arrested.
Also I’m fine with the costs of the War on Drugs, I will am willing to pay the taxes for it, for it will be better then the heavy social consequences of legalized drugs. Look even in the most liberal countries in the world like the Netherlands only marijuana has been legalized, even they aren’t prepared for hard drug legalization.
Legalities: It is perfectly legal for the government to take away children who are in abusive, negelectful, or dangerous environment.
Logistics: Considering all the billions of the Stimulus Package surely the government can’t spare a few millions for at least a test run of the project?
The majority of people don’t use “hard” drugs and most people would be opposed to it.