Youth / OPINION : Should Gangs Be Banned From Public Parks?

Earlier this month, Arcadia High School won a national Bill of Rights contest sponsored by the Center for Civic Education in Calabasas. The students above were among the 28 winners.

RICHARD LEE

Senior, 18, Arcadia High School

One of the main things about it, aside from it being constitutionally illegal, is that it violates a person’s right to associate wherever he wants.

Cities are trying to create safe havens for citizens, but banning certain meeting places won’t eliminate gangs. Mostly, when people say gangs, whether consciously or not, they are referring to blacks, Latinos, Asians. There is a history of harassment by the police of minorities. A ban would give police or security that much more (reason) to harass or single out minorities. In almost every instance, when you take into account individual rights, you are going to have to weigh the common welfare.

SHIRLEY LIANG

Senior, 17

I agree with the proposed ban. I have a sister and a brother. I don’t want them to join gangs. You also have to consider community safety.

I have cousins in the San Gabriel Valley, and I saw how they fell into that. One of my cousins is not even going to graduate from high school. There’s tremendous peer pressure. But not so much among those who are highly motivated. Maybe with a ban, the pressure would dissipate.

ANNE JENSEN

Senior, 17

I know (a ban would) infringe on their freedom of expression and their freedom of assembly, but I also believe that gangs are involved in drug traffic and with drive-by shootings. So, if gangs were banned from parks, it would be safer for the children. It makes it a great deal safer for anyone who wants to be there.

A ban would be better for society as a whole. Parks are city-funded and they are there to help the general welfare. At the same time, the general welfare is suffering to such an intense degree that the inalienable right to assemble should be secondary.

JOHN PAN

Senior, 18

It will (not) help, if they are just going to go somewhere else. You can’t ban them from everywhere.

(But) if it can be shown or justified that banning them from parks would promote safety, if it will make the place safer, then, yes, go ahead.

DAVID HOLMES

Senior, 18

Parks are built for the expression of ideas. (Gang members) may even have more of a right to use parks, because they are expressing ideas that are not generally accepted. I can’t believe a ban would be upheld. It would be singling gangs out as a malicious aspect of the city.

If I were a white male expressing ideas of patriotism, no one is going to bother me. (But) unpopular ideas need more protection. I see the interest of the state in this case, but if I were on the (Supreme Court), they would have to find a less restrictive means of trying to prevent crimes, like curfews. A ban is almost like saying, “What you’re doing is OK, but not in parks.”

K.C. BALTZ

Senior, 18

Association comes up when you deal with a gang. It deals with the ability of people to work together. I don’t know how much they do in the park. But if it could be shown that keeping them out would reduce the crime rate, then it would be OK. The government does have a compelling interest in stopping crime.

There are better ways that could (stop crime). I don’t see a problem with eliminating anyone in the park after a certain hour, for example. Ideologically, it’s not OK. But practically, it is a good idea.

ROBERT HSU

Senior, 18

If you ban people just because (of) what they imply they might do, you are putting a label on people. You can’t say, “This group of people can’t be here.” You’re violating their right of assembly.

If I was wearing gang colors and walking through the park and they told me I wasn’t allowed, I would feel like my rights were violated. But if someone was holding a gun the police should be able to break them up.

BRETT BROGE

Senior, 17

We can’t deny groups like gangs a right to assemble. In cases that involve the (Ku Klux Klan), the court has upheld their right to assembly. Even though they serve a negative purpose. they still have rights.

It is important that everyone has a right to feel safe. But there’s no constitutional right to safety. The government does have the responsibility to make sure citizens feel safe, (but) I don’t think they should be able to do that by limiting the rights of gangs.