D.C. Crime Tools

The Council should approve a handful of measures against violence.

THE D.C. COUNCIL has a chance tomorrow to give law enforcement officers powerful new tools to combat the scourge of gang violence that has long plagued parts of the city. Council members should approve the measures, which have been tightened to better protect against breaches of civil liberties.

The most controversial proposal involves civil gang injunctions, which would allow the District government to create public "safety zones" deemed off-limits to individuals identified as members of gangs. A judge must approve the District's identification of a gang and gang members, as well as sign off on the boundaries of the safety zone. Gang members accused of violating the court-imposed prohibitions would be entitled to court-appointed lawyers to contest criminal contempt charges; if convicted they could be fined or face up to 120 days in jail.

Backers of the provision, including council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) and the Fenty administration, have made concessions to protect the rights of those who could be subject to the new law. For example, under a revised proposal the government must meet a higher standard of proof to secure contempt charges. They have also included in their proposal the more exacting definition of a gang already included in the criminal code, and they have agreed to more narrowly define the types of activities that could trigger a violation of the injunction. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who has proposed his own version of the gang legislation, has offered some sensible compromises, including a requirement that injunctions be renewed with court approval after two years. Yet other proposals -- such as limiting the geographic area that constitutes a safety zone -- would undermine the flexibility needed by law enforcement officers to identify trouble areas and disrupt gang activity.

The council should also give the green light to several other proposals, including enhanced penalties for felons possessing guns and a provision to give judges greater flexibility to detain defendants charged with gun crimes.

These tools alone cannot address the myriad problems associated with gangs; gang intervention, educational and work programs are also important to channel current or potential gang members toward more productive activities. Defense lawyers and civil rights advocates have expressed profound concerns about the measures before the council. They should remain vigilant, as should the judiciary. But law-abiding residents whose neighborhoods have been ravaged by gang violence also deserve consideration. These new tools should be given a chance.

Do you have a different view of this issue? Debate the editorial board in our Editorial Judgment feature.