NCJ Number
196787
Journal
Future of Children Volume: 12 Issue: 2 Dated: Summer/Fall 2002 Pages: 133-151
Date Published
2002
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This document presents case studies of eight cities’ efforts to police gun crime.
Abstract
The three different approaches to strengthening social control to reduce youth gun violence were reciprocal control, punitive legal control, and “soft” legal control. Reciprocal control aimed to make the crime-control activities of police and community groups mutually reinforcing. Power-sharing arrangements evolved between police and citizens through a process of problem solving and collective decision making. The punitive approach focuses on deterring gun violence through vigorous law enforcement. Aggressive street-level enforcement was used to detect and remove guns through intensive surveillance and high arrest rates. The “soft” legal control approach emphasized community-driven, non-arrest methods, such as voluntary searches of homes where juveniles were suspected of keeping weapons. Law enforcement agencies that focused on police-citizen cooperation benefited from a more positive image and sense of legitimacy in the community, enhancing their efforts to fight crime. Aggressive law enforcement strategies may have contributed to a decline in youth gun violence but they cost police legitimacy in minority communities where residents felt the tactics were unfair or racially motivated. Safety is only one dimension on which citizens evaluate police and fair treatment may be a more important factor. Non-arrest alternatives and problem-solving strategies offered an interesting but unproven vision for addressing gun crime. These case studies suggest that policing alone cannot contain lethal youth violence. Police actions are not likely to stop the cycle of youth gun crime, but their tactics can shape the history of that violence. Youth gun violence reflects a crisis of adolescent development in contexts of violence and danger. Race in the social context requires sensitivity to questions of legitimacy and procedural fairness. 1 figure, 77 endnotes