Existing laws aimed to curtail violent activity discriminate against non-gang American youth.

Laws aimed to curtail violent gang activity are written in such a vague or ambiguous manner that they can be easily misapplied to non-gang American youth.

These laws aimed to curtail violent gang activity are written in such a vague or ambiguous manner that it leaves them open to easy misapplication to non-gang American youth. Police, the main law enforcement, along with private citizens and the gang members themselves, have trouble interpreting them because of either their sophisticated legal language, their omission of clear definitions, or their outdated language.

Laws aimed to curtail violent gang activity are written in such a vague or ambiguous manner that they can be easily misapplied to non-gang American youth. Neither law enforcement officers nor legal defenders of gang members are able to interpret the laws and accurately apply them to individual situations. There are three primary reasons for this widespread misapplication: legal language is not easily understood, clear definitions are often omitted, and outdated terms are often used.

The language these laws are written in are usually words that come naturally to those who have long involvement or educated knowledge of the proper legal terms. These people have either spent most of their life learning this vocabulary or spent a lot of years in school becoming fluent in it. For example, a loitering order in Chicago is applied to persons who are "engaged in no manifestly lawful activity" (qtd. in Collins 148). In my case, I'd have to find a dictionary or an extremely knowledgeable person to explain it in layman's terms. This is difficult to do for someone being arrested, not knowing why, and some police not having enough knowledge of the meaning of the law to explain exactly why they are being arrested.

American law is written primarily by experts and is often too complex for non-lawyers to interpret. For example, a loitering order in Chicago is written to apply to persons who are "engaged in no manifestly lawful activity" (qtd. in Collins 148). Understanding clearly and precisely what this phrase means is a difficult task, not only for law enforcement, but also for the individual to which it is being applied. As William McFearden of LawWatch, a Chicago law enforcement watchdog organization states, "Nearly half of all arrests under the new law have been shamelessly inappropriate . . . due to misunderstanding of the law itself" (43). As a result, the language problem affects all parties involved.

Besides the specialized language, the omission of clear definitions can lead to a law's misapplication. For example, in Los Angeles there is a law which states a person can be arrested for "probable cause" ("Ordinance" 56). There is no mention of what provokes this probable cause. Also, in San Jose, a public nuisance law says that suspected gang members can be arrested or fined for any form of association which includes "standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing anywhere in public view" (Jones 12-13). This vagueness can lead to many unwarranted arrests.

In addition to difficult legal language, the second reason that anti-gang laws tend to be misapplied is that the laws themselves often omit clear definitions. For example, a Los Angeles law states that a person can be arrested for "probable cause" ("Ordinance" 56). What is probable cause? The law gives no definition of the term. Similarly, a San Jose public nuisance law suggests that suspected gang members can be arrested or fined for any type of association, which includes "standing, sitting, walking, driving, gathering or appearing anywhere in public view" (Jones 12-13). The inappropriate broadness of this definition makes it easily applied to anyone, and the use of it can lead to many unwarranted arrests.

Another cause of misinterpretation can be caused due to the outdated language used in some older, but still used laws. As times change, language changes and younger people not familiar with the older language will not understand its meaning or application. For example, the use of the word "colors" is outdated. Gang-specific colors are no longer as prevalent as the way they dress, what they wear, or how they wear it.

The third cause of misinterpretation can be traced to outdated language used in older, less familiar, but currently utilized laws. As times change, language naturally evolves and new meanings are sometimes attached to words that have historically had completely different ones. For example, the word "colors" has historically been used to describe actual color tones and, in some parts of the world, to describe flags or banners that identified ships or kingdoms (Van Graff 1:44). In the past twenty years, gang "colors" were recognized among gang members. Many recent legislators have included use of the term "colors" in their laws ("Ordinance" 50; Shoop 12), not realizing that "colors" now does not carry the same widespread meaning among gangs that it once did. In Sacramento, a non-gang youth was arrested for wearing "colors" without his even knowing what color he was being arrested for (Shoop 13). Thus, applying these older laws with outdated interpretations can cause them to be misapplied.

For a variety of reasons, then, the vagueness of today's law hinders the correct application of law to both gang and non-gang American youth.