GANGS AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE

With the body count piling up and shopping plazas turning into
shooting ranges, the gang situation in Vancouver and surrounding areas
tops the agenda. Much of the media has relegated the economy to second
place as the gang phenomenon dominates talk shows and opinion pages.
Supposed experts in gangs, organized crime, drugs and violence are
having a field day giving interviews. Sadly, the commentary to date
has been predictable and falls into three categories: social programs,
decriminalization and tougher sentences--each a non-starter.

The least helpful constituency thus far has been the country's
criminologists. The problem with criminology is that almost all of its
practitioners were exclusively schooled, or specialized, in a narrow
sociological stream of study. Few have any expertise or interest in
psychological and economic perspectives of crime and are fixated on
simplistic, idealistic notions that are best saved for coffee house
chatter. Consequently, the criminological consensus is typically one
dimensional--social programs. And more social programs.

So, we have the solution of increased social spending to address
alienated, homeless, uneducated, disenfranchised, excluded, runaway
youth who have been economically marginalized and impoverished by
Gordon Campbell and Stephen Harper. I'm not quite sure how this
explains the Bacon brothers, who live in a nice home in a trendy
subdivision with mom, the financial institution worker and dad, the
school district employee. But rest assured, this is the stock response
to every social ill that will get a criminology student a pass on the
final exam every time.

And of course, the decriminalization advocates insist that almost all
local gang and organized crime activity is directly or indirectly tied
to the marijuana trade and all that's needed is some system of
legalization and regulation to put the gangs out of business. They're
quite correct. Gangs have grown proportionately to the booming bud
industry.

The problem with decriminalization though, is "it ain't gonna
happen."

Maybe it should. But it's not in the realm of the possible. Those
advocating this route are pretty well in the same boat as the crew
wanting a return to capital punishment. The political cost, coupled
with our physical and economic proximity to the U.S., completely rules
it out. The only chance is if Mexico throws in the towel and makes the
move first. That would open up an ever so slim window of
opportunity.

Until then you'd be better off bankrolling Stephan Dion's leadership
comeback.

The other popular response is something in between mandatory minimum
sentences and "lock 'em up and throw away the key." Had we brought in
such legislation 15 years ago and backed it with dedicated
enforcement, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today. The
grow-op business would have been too high-risk with too many downsides.

If the consequences for getting busted for growing dope were the same
in 1993 as they were for driving a truckload of it across the border,
we never would have reached this point.

But that ship has sailed. Bringing in those types of laws and
sentences now would have minimal impact. Tougher sentences would help
put some bad people behind bars for a long, long time. But organized
crime and gangs would persevere. They're much too entrenched to be
removed or cut down now. Not to sound overly defeatist--but it's too
late. Nothing we do at this point is going to have a significant
impact on the number of gangs or their practices. Unless we declare
martial law, the best we can do is contain the situation and hamper
further growth.

The warnings and concerned voices of those who foresaw this 15 years
ago, and they were many, were ignored by legislators who were fully
briefed on the ramifications of a non-response.

A healthy chunk of the outrage we see regarding gunfire in the streets
must be reserved for those who allowed us to reach this state.

John Martin is a criminologist at the University of the Fraser Valley.