Thoughts of Today: Archive

Chicago Gangs: Part 1
Violent Criminal Cliques
The Editor, Sheridan Lardner
August 2010

       Can a city have one problem that is worse than all the others? Or are all of a city’s problems equal contributors to a complex picture? Or, as is often the case in academia, is there a safe and snuggly middleground that we can comfortably hide in? Our Chicago does not lack problems. But does it have one that is so much worse than the others? I invite you on a brief tour. We start with Supreme Emperor Daley, immortal be his reign, and his nepotism and corruption. Of course there are the “standard, been-there-done-that” urban poverty and public health failures, coupled with a state and city budget that was ostensibly balanced by a group of third-graders who just learned the word “economics” from a computer game. We provide an education system that seriously contemplates four-day-weeks during the year, one that simultaneously closes schools and eliminates teachers. As to getting around, Chicago’s public transportation system functions like the cliffhanger from a Dick Tracy radio show, complete with generic announcer voice. Will your bus come in an hour? Will a caravan of four come in twenty minutes?? Will your train wait for thirty minutes on the platform while the operator naps??! Or will your driver miss your stop because you did not ring the electronic, preset volume bell loud enough?!!? Not that you have much choice in transportation, unless your car is on wheels from a James Bond flick. Compare a shelled-out street in 1990s Serbia, and a pot-holed street in 2010 Chicago; the only difference is that one looks a lot colder (ours).


Chicago skyline (Aon Center and Sears/Willis Tower featured)

       It can be fun to discuss such problems, and Chicago loves its endless self-deprecation. But we now come to the moment where laughter gives way to sincerity, and the audience falls respectfully silent. Chicago has one problem that I am unwilling to make light of. My unwillingness alone is no indicator that this one problem is graver than the others, but I present it seriously so that it will be received seriously. The problem is gangs. It may seem like I am saying nothing new; gangs have topped Chicago headlines for decades, and it is commonly known that they are a widespread problem. But that they are the worst problem in Chicago? Are they the problem that causes almost all our city’s other problems? This is a more brazen statement. It is also the statement that I am making now.

Classifying the Problem


Criminal street and drug gangs are a pervasive, systemic, and overwhelming threat to Chicago, Chicago’s citizens, and above all, to its children. Pervasive, because their influence and territory is everywhere; Systemic, because they exist as part of a deeply entrenched system of criminal activity; and overwhelming, because they are powerful and resilient to removal. Gangs, and their relationship to the city, have been illustrated in many ways; as plagues and viruses (a public health concern), terrorists, predators, and parasites. Yet, they are much worse than these descriptions suggest. They are our enemies.
Two Chicago Public School students posing

       Before I make recommendations about how gangs should be dealt with, I must first demonstrate why gangs must be dealt with. Foremost, I must account for my classification of gangs as “enemies”, for this term exists many tiers above mere “problems” or “social ills”. Even to an embittered resident of Chicago’s distressed communities, “enemies” might sound harsh. After all, gangs are composed of the children, fathers, brothers, cousins, and other members of that community in which they operate in. Can we really brand our neighbor’s wayward son with that uncompromising term “enemy”? Do you think you could call your own son “enemy”? Before you answer in the negative, you must understand what these gangs are, and what they do to this city and their neighborhoods, to their friends, relatives, and fellow humans.

Gangs as Violent Criminals

       This will not be a holistic, historical survey of gangs and their evolution. It might also lack academic nuance. When it comes to dealing with gangs, I do not care that Chicago’s Black P Stone gang began as the Blackstone Rangers, a local community organization that intended to provide services for youths in the Woodlawn neighborhood. That was the late 1950s, and this is now, and their past merits do not give them credit today. In the 21st Century, urban gangs serve two primary functions. They 1) commit crimes, and 2) they are comprised of members who share a common gang name and identity. (National Youth Gang Survey Analysis, 2007: “Defining Gangs and Designating Gang Membership”). The first characteristic is important, because such general terms do not specify the type of crime that gang members commit. They engage in a variety of illegalities including assaults, robberies, larcenies, narcotic sales, and, as is most publicized, murder.

       While we cannot ignore gang preference for certain crimes over others (many of Chicago’s gangs are drug dealers first and foremost), the emphasis on criminal enterprise period is what is more important. As to names and identities, while almost everyone over the age of 15 with a TV or computer is familiar with Los Angeles’ Crips and Bloods, Chicago’s gangs go by different monikers, such as the Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, Latin Kings, Conservative/Renegade/Insane/etc. Vice Lords, Four Corner Hustlers, New Breeds, and a variety of other colorful titles. Gang members are viciously loyal to their organization’s unique name, history, and traditions. Thus, we can broadly classify Chicago’s street gangs as criminal cabals of allied members. This is how we must understand our gangs; not just as drug organizations or as deviant social networks, but as criminal units with shared allegiances.
      
       This is what gangs are. So what is it that gangs do? As said, they are criminals before all else. In Chicago, their criminal activity primarily takes the form of drug sales and distribution, and any violence needed to secure these dealings. The era of “boys will be boys” is gone, as is the summertime brawling, smoking, drinking, defacing, and other misdemeanor behavior that classified the “gangs” of the pre-1950s. While Chicago’s gangs certainly engage in this behavior as well, their primary businesses are violent crime and drug crime. Drug crime is simply the sale, distribution, and purchase of illegal narcotics. Specifically, Chicago’s drugs in ascending order of profitability are marijuana, (crack) cocaine, and heroin. The gangs purchase them from abroad, sell the drugs to addicts, and use the profits to buy more product and for personal benefit. It is a fairly simple business model at its basic core, although innovations and evolutions have perfected it over the years.


The September 24, 2009 fight outside of Fenger High School in Chicago. Honor student Derrion Albert was killed in the gang-related conflict.

       Gang-perpetrated violent crime exists both independently and as a consequence of drug crime. Insofar as it depends on drug crime, violence can secure lucrative drug selling territory, eliminate (literally) competition, guarantee payment, and seize competitors’ own products. Drugs are illegal, so all protection and enforcement of their business must also be illegal. Violence naturally ensues. Gang members also engage in interpersonal violence that is either loosely related or completely divorced from the drug trade. Settling personal vendettas, after-school bullying, demanding respect, robbery, impressing members of the other sex; these are all activities that gang-affiliated youths frequently handle using violence.

Community Impact: The Theory

       As I mentioned before, it is hard to gauge narcotics-impact on a community. There is no good way of knowing how many residents use drugs, how many residents deal drugs, and how many residents are affected by dealers and users. This makes it difficult for the social scientist, the social worker, and the policy maker to make informed decisions about combating gangs insofar as they are drug-dealing entities; we just can’t fully know what drugs do to a community, because their impact is hard to measure. But measuring gang violence? That is a far easier task. It also reveals a starker and more pointed truth; in Chicago, gangs are the main perpetrators of violence. I will discuss the in-depth effects that violence has on communities in the second part of this series, but it requires little imagination to see what constant shootings and stabbings might do to a neighborhood.


CeaseFire Chicago is a federally funded program that seeks to combat the violence and mend distressed communities

       Residents lose their sense of security and longevity, and they have difficulty focusing on schooling and family when they are so worried about their personal safety. Friendship and companionship is not necessarily long-lasting, when a stray bullet can easily end a relationship. Even simple activities like going to the store to get some milk become dangerous expeditions through hostile territory, even if you are neither gang nor drug-involved. Chicago’s distressed communities are victimized by these hyper-violent street gangs moreso than by any other violence-causing factor. After all, gangs are dedicated criminal cabals full of aspiring and practiced deviants, whereas other causes of violence (personal fights, domestic abuse, drunken arguments, etc.) are less organized and dedicated.

Community Impact: The Numbers

       While my statements so far may appear to be philosophically true, that does not mean they have any grounding in reality. In the spirit of proper social science, I now offer the hard evidence. I have focused on the period between 2002 and 2008, as documented in the Chicago Police Department’s Annual Report series (available here: https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Annual%20Reports). I have chosen 2002 as a representative starting point because it was the last year that had 600+ murders (2003 had exactly 600). 2008 serves as our ending point because the CPD has, unfortunately, not yet released comprehensive data for 2009 or 2010.

       On average, Chicago murders were down in our time period. The 2002 high of 654 dropped down to a decades-long low of 448 in 2004, with the next three years seeing very slight fluctuation (448, 471, and 442 for 2005, 2006, and 2007 respectively). It was not until 2008 that Chicago’s murder regained its upward trend, with the 510 killed in 2008 indicating a particularly bloody year. We can see that over this timer period, murder rates changed. Gang involvement, however, did not. The table below shows the breakdown of murders and their causes between 2002 and 2008. The causative factors are “Gang” (a shooting involving gang-members with gang-based motivations), “personal altercation” (a fight or conflict about personal matters not involving gang members), “robbery” (a murder that resulted from a crime in which property was taken or was attempted to be taken), “other” (a combination of domestic, child-abuse, spousal abuse, and other smaller categorizations of murders), and “under investigation” (murders with unknown causes at the year’s end).

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murder total

654

600

448

448

471

442

510

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gang

258

203

165

190

205

170

229

Personal altercation

117

124

102

85

94

92

97

Robbery

59

53

47

41

46

35

57

Other

119

85

86

82

72

89

78

Under investigation

101

135

48

50

54

56

49

       Here is the percentage breakdown of the causes relative to the total number of solved-murders in the year. I have only compared the individual causative factors to the total of murders WITH known causes. For instance, in 2002, there were 101 murders that were under investigation, so I compared the other causative factors to the 2002 murder total (654) minus that 101 (553). Here is the percentage breakdown of the causes relative to the total number of solved-murders in the year. I have only compared the individual causative factors to the total of murders WITH known causes. For instance, in 2002, there were 101 murders that were under investigation, so I compared the other causative factors to the 2002 murder total (654) minus that 101 (553).

 

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Murder total

654

600

448

448

471

442

510

Murders with known cause

553

465

400

398

417

386

461

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gang %

47%

44%

41%

48%

49%

44%

50%

Personal altercation %

21%

27%

26%

21%

23%

24%

21%

Robbery %

11%

11%

12%

10%

11%

9%

12%

Other %

22%

18%

22%

21%

17%

23%

17%

       Looking at the numbers across these years, we find that, on average, gangs accounted for 46% of all homicides in any given year. The next highest causative factors are, in order, personal altercation (average 23%), “other” (20%), and robbery (11%). Consider that fact. Gangs kill more people every year than the entire “other” category and “personal altercations” category combined. In 2008, fully half of all murders were caused by gangs. Chicago’s bloody crown, “Murder Capital of America,” seems thus to have largely been bestowed because of gang violence. Admittedly, there are a number of unsolved murders from every year that might alter our total percentages. But truth be told, they would likely alter them in favor of even more gang-related killings. Why? Because the tight-knit, cohesive, and dangerous world of gangs lends itself to a “code of silence”, in which murders and murderers go underreported, even by those who are not in a gang; fear of retaliation is just too high.

Part 1 Conclusion

       To conclude this first article about Chicago gangs, I will summarize my points. First, Chicago has one problem that stands above and beyond all others: gangs. Second, these gangs must be considered as violent criminal groups before anything else, with an emphasis on “violent.” Third, while Chicago is an urban area with many compounding criminal problems, gangs account for the vast majority of community violence. This is true both philosophically (a group of criminals appears more likely to commit dedicated and vicious crimes than do non-criminals, or even criminals not in a group) and factually (by looking at Chicago’s murder statistics from 2002 through 2008). Thus, we see that Chicago’s gangs account for most of our violence, and that their criminally violent nature is the reason that we can view them as enemies. In the next article, I will discuss the specific effects that this violence has on members of Chicago communities, further reinforcing my classification of gangs as enemies.


The scene of the May 20, 2010 murder of Chicago Police Officer and Iraq War veteran Thomas Wortham IV, who was killed during an attempted robbery of his motorcycle.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What it is like to be Batty
A Response to Nagel's Essay
The Editor, Sheridan Lardner
November 2009

Nagel's Original Essay, "What it is like to be a Bat"

Nagel’s main contention, that consciousness is irreducible to physical explanations, is well-argued and highly compelling. While many worldly phenomena are indeed physically reducible (for instance, that a table is mostly empty space between tiny molecules, not the solid piece of wood we think it is), experience does not appear to be. Our experience, or that of dogs, mice, or bats, is always defined by our subjective position in the world. When I experience a rainbow, I am physically seeing and processing a reducible quality; light refracted through water molecules. That is the objective truth. But my personal experience of seeing the rainbow radically differs from those of others, even though we physically embark on the same process. When we reduce a phenomenon, we try to make it objectively true and universally applicable. But this is not possible with the inherently subjective notion of experience.

            While Nagel’s underlying philosophy is reasonable, he draws from it an inaccurate conclusion. In describing the difficulty in imagining what it is like to be a bat, he explains “I am restricted to the resources of my own mind, and those resources are inadequate to the task. I cannot perform it...by imagining some combination of additions, subtractions, and modifications [to my personal experience].” (Nagel 523) Nagel is correct that we are always restricted to our own mental resources. In saying that they are insufficient for the task, however, he short-changes humans.  To demonstrate this, we will look at a specific example; an insane man. While someone who is insane is not a bat (at least not literally), his senses and experiences are as alien to us, as much as, if not even more than, those of a blind or deaf person. If Nagel is to be believed, we must expect that it is virtually impossible to understand the experience of madness without actually being mad, just as it is virtually impossible to understand the experience of deafness or blindness without actually being deaf or blind. This, however, is not quite true.

Choose a word in the English language, any word at all. If you cannot decide on one, consider the word “mind.” Now, speak the word out loud one hundred times in a row. Each time you speak the word, think of the different sounds that comprise the word, the word’s origin, and the word’s meaning. Continue this with each additional repetition, banishing all thoughts except those of this word. Dissect the word in your mental vacuum and continue to repeat it out loud one hundred times.

Those who follow the above instructions undergo a spiraling and falling sensation, as their thoughts tumble away from reality and into the strange fixation of repetition. Anyone is capable of following the above directions, including the fully sane. Yet, the experience that arises is one peculiar to madness. It is the same experience that a lunatic in an asylum has when he obsesses over a concept and tries to carry it out to infinity. Contrary to Nagel’s suggestion, we are indeed able to have this supposedly unique experience, even though we are not mad ourselves. We must admit that our own mental resources and sensory capabilities are not those of a madman, just as they are not of a deaf or blind person. And yet, through an interesting mental trick, we experience a moment of true madness, specifically the insanity of obsession and repetition. This hints that we may be able to experience a similar moment of true deafness, blindness, or even batness, through clever manipulation of the mind. It is unclear what those clever manipulations specifically are, or how they might be brought about. But that they might exist is undeniable. Nagel claims it is impossible to have the subjective experiences of madmen, blind men, deaf men, or bats, because our mental resources are confined to our own experience. The above thought experiment shows, however, that even a perfectly sane person, using his sane mental resources, can experience real, even if only momentary, madness.

NEWS UPDATE: Gaming Guild and the Editor featured in a Chicago Maroon article on Capture the Flag
Read the article here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic of the Moment:
The Purpose of a Belief (Part 1)
The Editor, Sheridan Lardner
October 2009

This is a response to the following paragraph, an excerpt from William James's Principles of Psychology, Chapter 21 entitled "The Perception of Reality".

"A philosophy may be unimpeachable in other respects, but either of two defects will be fatal to its universal acceptance. First, its ultimate principle must not be one that essentially baffles and disappoints our dearest desires and most cherished powers. A pessimistic principle like Schopenhauer's incurably vicious Will-substance, or Hartmann's wicked jack-at-all-trades, the Unconscious, will perpetually call forth essays at other philosophies. Incompatibility of the future with their desires and active tendencies is, in fact, to most men a source of more fixed disquietude than uncertainty itself. Witness the attempts to overcome the 'problem of evil,' the 'mystery of pain.' There is no problem of 'good.'

But a second and worse defect in a philosophy than that of contradicting our active propensities is to give them no Object whatever [p. 313] to press against. A philosophy whose principle is so incommensurate with our most intimate powers as to deny them all relevancy in universal affairs, as to annihilate their motives at one blow, will be even more unpopular than pessimism. Better face the enemy than the eternal Void! This is why materialism will always fail of universal adoption, however well it may fuse things into an atomistic unity, however clearly it may prophesy the future eternity. For materialism denies reality to the objects of almost all the impulses which we most cherish. The real meaning of the impulses, it says, is something which has no emotional interest for us whatever. But what is called extradition is quite as characteristic of our emotions as of our sense. Both point to an object as the cause of the present feeling. What an intensely objective reference lies in fear I In like manner an enraptured man, a dreary-feeling man, are not simply aware of their subjective states; if they were, the force of their feelings would evaporate. Both believe there is outward cause why they should feel as they do: either 'It is a glad world! 'how good is life!' or 'What a loathsome tedium is existence!' Any philosophy which annihilates the validity of the reference by explaining away its objects or translating them into terms of no emotional pertinency leaves the mind with little to care or act for. This is the opposite condition from that of nightmare, but when acutely brought home to consciousness it produces a kindred horror. In nightmare we have motives to act, hut no power: here we have powers, but no motives. A nameless Unheimlichkeit comes over us at the thought of there being nothing eternal in our final purposes, in the objects of those loves and aspirations which are our deepest energies. The monstrously lopsided equation of the universe and its knower, which we postulate as the ideal of cognition, is perfectly paralleled by the no less lopsided equation of the universe and the doer. We demand in it a character for which our emotions and active propensities shall be a match. Small as we are, minute as is the point by which the Cosmos impinges upon each one of us, each one desires to feel that his reaction at that point is congruous with the demands of the vast whole, that balances the latter, so to speak, and is able to do what it expects of him. But as his abilities to 'do' lie wholly in the line of his natural propensities; as he enjoys reaction with such emotions as fortitude, hope, rapture, admiration, earnestness, and the like; and as he very unwillingly reacts with fear, disgust, despair, or doubt, -- a philosophy which should legitimate only emotions of the latter sort would be sure to leave the mind a prey to discontent and craving."

According to James in Perceptions of Reality, there are two conditions under which a theory will most readily receive universal acceptance. First, the theory cannot “baffle or disappoint” our perceived strengths and virtues. Second, that the theory cannot declare these perceived strengths and virtues unimportant, the result of which is to “…deny them all relevancy in universal affairs…” (James, 313). Upon examination, this latter qualification appears most reasonable. No one desires a meaningless life, and no one wishes to subscribe to a doctrine that renders their actions inconsequential and trite. James argues these points well.  We must give him far less praise, however, for his former argument.

James writes far less on this first contention than he does on the second, so it is fairly difficult to know exactly what he means by “baffle and disappoint.” If we are to avoid plunging into the minutiae of Schopenhauer and Hartmann, we must be content with James’s own example of how a theory might disconcert its readers; “Incompatibilities of the future with their desires and active tendencies is, in fact, to most men a source of more fixed disquietude than uncertainty itself.” (James, 312) James essentially claims that, if a theory produces an incompatibility between a “future” and the current “desires” and “tendencies” of “men”, then that theory is likely to be unpopular and unsuccessful.

But this is not remotely true. Many widely accepted and timelessly successful theories demand man’s attention to substantial inconsistencies between his current actions and a philosophized future. Consider organized religions, whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. Everyone must admit that these philosophies, if they can so be called, are wildly popular in the world. Yet, they do not conform to James’s idea of what makes a successful theory. These religions each emphasize many inconsistencies between man’s present tendencies and actions and a better proposed future. For instance, Christianity postulates such a future is heaven and eternal salvation, a quite appealing end. In order to reach that future, however, man must alter, often radically, his current actions and tendencies; cease sin, adopt virtue, attend worship, and so on. If we believed James’s conditions, we would expect Christianity to never have gotten off the ground. After all, how was such a faith to overpower the Roman and Gothic pagans and their excessive and sinful ways?  At least, this is what we would expect James to inquire. Such a question would of course be wrong. History affords countless examples of men converting to a religion despite enormous discrepancies between their present way of living (desires, actions, tendencies, etc.) and the future that religion offers. For instance, consider many tribes of primitives and savages, to borrow the nomenclature of the time. Historically, while their present ways of life were completely incompatible with a future offered by a Christian missionary, this discrepancy rarely prevented conversion. 

So it is in this respect that James’s reasoning falls short. Indeed, one might even uphold an opposite position to James’s; the purpose of philosophy or any creed is actually to create an incompatibility with man’s present tendencies, so that they can change in order to attain a more desirable future.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS, MARCH 2009:
The Editor featured on the University of Chicago, School of Social Service Administration Centennial front page
http://ssacentennial.uchicago.edu/features/features-crimelab.shtml ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic of the Moment:
GANGS AND URBAN VIOLENCE
Impressions from the SSA Symposium
The Editor, Sheridan Lardner
March 2009

     “Gangs, guns, and drugs.” Three scourges of the city, declared by Chicago Police Superintendant Jody Weis as the ominous focuses at the daylong December 6 School of Social Service Administration Conference on Gangs and Urban Violence. Collaborating with Chicago Police Department, University alumni, and distinguished University faculty, the SSA sought in its celebratory centennial year to illuminate the shadowy underworld of Chicago’s gangs; their methods, motives, and the violent scars they leave on the community. Downtown Chicago’s Gleacher Center served as the meeting place for the conference, with seven diverse speakers gathering for seven equally diverse presentations. Co-directors of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, Professors Jens Ludwig and Harold Pollack, attended to share their findings and dialogue with a range of other experts in this defining conversation. Through examining the often misunderstood world of gangs, the SSA hoped to promote informed conversation on a topic critical to the future of law enforcement, social work, and the city of Chicago itself.   

     Leading off the event was Superintendant Weis, detailing the constant game of escalation between law enforcement and gangs. Laying out the fundamentals of the gang problem in Chicago, Mr. Weis emphasized the mobility and evolving structure of gangs in countering the police’s efforts. These efforts too were expanded upon, with Mr. Weis elaborating on a range of new strategies implemented to pressure Chicago’s gangs. The bad guys aren’t staying in one place, so neither should the police; this was Mr. Weis’s strategy as he described newly formed police units, free to deploy to any hotspot of crime, completely un-tethered by district or beat. Community also plays a critical role in the CPDs new tactics, with “Text-a-Tip” programs offering a cell-phone using generation easy and safe methods for alerting police and keeping their neighborhoods safe. Mr. Weis showed that even in a year as bloody as 2008, the police worked tirelessly to combat the forces of violence and destruction that threatened the safety of communities.

      Plunging deeper into the sinister crevices of gang life, Sergeant Eddie Yoshimura of the Gang Intelligence Unit outlined the evolution of modern, Chicago gangs. To the gangs, Illinois Correctional Institutions and the streets exist in a symbiotic, although oftentimes disjointed, relationship. Through the lens of these two categories, Sergeant Yoshimura described the formation and leadership of four broader gang alliances: One Love, Latin Folks, Kings, and the Finballs. From the infamous Gangster Disciples of One Love, the Finball Vicelords, and the Latin Kings, the discussed groups and their members provided a chilling cross-section of Chicago’s gang situation. Punctuating his point on the brutality of gangs, the CPD supplemented Sergeant Yoshimura’s lecture by laying out an armory of gang weapons, from crude, medieval looking bats covered in industrial staples, to sleek Tec-9 and Mac-10 assault weapons. Sergeant Yoshimura emphasized the adaptability of gangs to current law enforcement strategy, and the complexity of gang hierarchy and history. His words added profound detail and weight to the observations already made by Mr. Weis.

     Initiating the first of many University of Chicago presentations, SSA Associate Professor Dexter Voisin complemented the street-savvy discussion by the CPD with a more academic angle. Primarily referencing a survey of Southside high schools, Professor Voisin touched on the less tangible effects violence has on the community, and the less obvious victims of these effects. A sobering proportion of students at the studied institutions, unnamed for confidentiality, had not only been the direct victim of a violent crime, but merely witnessed a violent crime, or seen a dead body in a context other than at a funeral. Professor Voisin related children’s stories of watching friends and strangers hurt, robbed, and gunned down in front of their eyes, embodying the mentality of fear so responsible for driving violence in distressed communities. Collecting statistical evidence of falling grades, poor attendance, and troubled relationships between exposed children and their school teachers, Professor Voisin highlighted the oftentimes unseen damage that violence can have, not only on victims or perpetrators of violence. A bullet has only one target, but the spilled blood stains far more than just that one victim. Parents, siblings, friends, and mere acquaintances; the entire community becomes the victim.

     Following a discussion-filled lunch break, University of Chicago Law School Professor Randolph Stone explained the legal system and its treatment of juvenile justice. With gangs comprised of mostly younger members, many in high school or younger, the realm of juvenile justice was a critical one for the conference. The former public defender for Cook County, Professor Stone made us consider some of his previous cases. Four gang members in a North Side housing project are charged with first degree homicide. Two are proven to be the shooters. Two were only lookouts. These two lookouts were both juveniles at the time of the shooting, targeting rival gang members visiting the neighborhood. Should you charge them with the murders? Should you charge them as adults? What mitigating and aggravating factors would you account for in making these decisions? In considering these disparate elements, Professor Stone discussed his own views on the current sentencing laws, condemning their harshness and imbalances, a stance many in the audience agreed with. Yet, during the ensuing Q&A session, equally many audience members expressed their concern about reducing legal punishments towards juveniles. Older, higher ranking gang leaders are notorious in their use of juveniles, or “shorties”, to transport drugs, oversee deals, and carry out violence. These men know full well the law’s blindspots for children, using younger members of the gang whenever possible knowing the law will be so lenient. Would lowering sentencing and prosecution standards for juveniles merely increase this rampant abuse? Or would it offer children a second chances for their mistakes? These are challenging questions, one the audience could not reach consensus on, but ones worthy of far more thought in relation to the larger gang question.

     With “gangs” and “drugs” receiving a lot of attention thus far, it was McCormick Foundation Professor Jens Ludwig’s turn to tackle “guns”. Co-director of the Crime Lab, Professor Ludwig began by assessing the firearm situation nationwide, an educational talk that went over gun ownership facts, tackling the causative and correlative difficulties between crime and guns. While this attack on conventional wisdom was informative, it paled in comparison to Professor Ludwig’s incisive discussion of the underground Chicago gun economy. Public and media opinion often quivers in fear at the proliferation of handguns and assault rifles in the city; not only does every bad guy have a gun, but if they do not have one,  it is a matter of just asking around and a few days until they acquire one. In a research paper coauthored by Philip Cook and Sudhir Venkatesh, Professor Ludwig offered compelling evidence to the contrary. Illegal guns are extremely difficult to purchase in Chicago. All potential transactions are plagued by high levels of distrust by both seller and buyer. Either party could be an undercover officer. Even if not, there is no honor amongst thieves, and there is no guarantee that one party does not just wish to rob the other. Markup prices are incredibly high, product quality varies drastically, and overall transaction time is not measured in days, but in weeks. Professor Ludwig described the limiting of weaponry to gangs by their leaders; predominantly organizations focused on the selling of drugs, gangs find their business damaged by increased police pressure in the wake of violence. As such, profit-minded leaders restrict gang access to guns. Coupled with the high-friction black market already described, Professor Ludwig repainted Chicago’s gangland. His concluding advice: law enforcement focus on guns and the few arms dealers would increase the friction of an already fragile market, putting a potentially sizable dent in urban gun violence.

     The war on gangs, guns, and drugs is not one waged by just the police. Indeed, perhaps the best way to think of it isn’t as a war at all. Showing the effectiveness of a new approach to the decades-old problem, Dr. Gary Slutkin, MD ’75, gave a lecture on the work of his groundbreaking group CeaseFire. Under Dr. Slutkin’s direction, this organization treats the colloquially stated “epidemic” of urban violence as just that, an epidemic. A virus. CeaseFire operates on the philosophy that violence, like any virus, is caused by certain carriers. Isolate and stop the carriers, and you stop the virus’s transmission. Practically speaking, whether avenging a fallen gang or family member, shooting someone for disrespecting you, proving yourself with a pistol, or many other reasons, young men involved with gangs are prone to lethal behavior. Dr. Slutkin’s group deploys “interrupters” to high-risk areas, targeting high-risk people, and persuading them to put down their guns. Longtime community member, former gang member, recently out of prison; these are only some of the credentials boasted by the carefully selected and screened interrupters. These brave men and women enter street situations where violence is about to erupt, just trying to convince potential shooters not to pull the trigger in favor of any other alternative. Interrupters do not arrest. They talk. They encourage young men to think of their families, their friends, and the consequences of their actions. But mostly, they just try and stop the shooting. CeaseFire’s impact on Chicago neighborhoods has been tremendous. In the first year of implementation alone, the communities in which CeaseFire operated experienced a 45% decrease in shootings compared to a mere 10% reduction in all of Chicago. Between June 2006 and 2007, while CeaseFire’s neighborhoods saw a 50% shooting decrease, nearby communities not operated in actually experienced a 10% increase. Dr. Slutkin’s novel and effective approach has enjoyed stunning success in Chicago, and is now being implemented in other cities across the nation.

     The difficult task of conclusion and contextualization fell to SSA Associate Professor Harold Pollack. Co-directing the University of Chicago Crime Lab alongside colleague Jens Ludwig, Professor Pollack sought to give some direction and perspective to the day’s presentations and dialogue on gangs, guns, and drugs. It is a time for new programs and new ideas, as exemplified in all the researched words that had been said. Yet, we must step with great caution. Research and evidence must drive our policy decisions, not common sense and apparently sound logic. Professor Pollack offered a policy example from the 60s. Is it a good idea to build apartment buildings in urban areas for welfare recipients and poor families to live, centralizing resources and residents to maximize help and opportunities? Apartments where these people will live just until they can get on their feet and find better work and income? Sounds like a fine idea, but this was the thought process that went into the infamous Chicago housing projects like Robert Taylor and Cabrini-Green. Employing cautionary examples like this, Professor Pollack urged the audience to research their methods before employing them on such a wide and potentially devastating scale as was seen in the Chicago Housing Authority projects. Professor Pollack exemplified the SSA dedication to the intersection between theory and practice, showing that it was not enough to just observe the gang problem. Something must be done. Whatever is done, however, must be thoroughly researched and investigated before being put into wide use. It is this strategy which was a powerful endpoint for the December symposium, and one that will now be a cornerstone of the University of Chicago Crime Lab,

     Seven presentations. Three scourges. One unifying hope. Lurking in the words of every speaker, hidden in every topic, was an underlying and overarching goal of bettering this world. Whether through the street-level interactions of police and gang members, the judicial responsibility towards crime, or the researchers who must inform policy, everyone gathered towards a common purpose of Chicago-wide improvement. By the end of 2008, the cities murder rate had climbed to 510 dead, the highest since 2002. Not only were 80% of these murders committed with guns, but at least half of them were gang-related or motivated. Gangs and urban violence will continue to play a decisive role in Chicago’s infamous claim to the murder capital of America, but symposiums like the one on December 15th prove that people are not standing idly by. Through initiatives such as the Crime Lab, the University continues to work with the community to erase the bloody marks of the past and put an end to living in fear. At least for Chicago’s immediate future, this pursuit will always stare down its three greatest enemies; gangs, guns, and drug


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MOST IMPORTANT GENERATION
PUDDLE CENTURY
The Editor, Sheridan Lardner
Week of July 21 - July 27

    A gentlemen wheeling around a 1990s model Jewel shopping cart and wearing a Grateful Dead t-shirt informed me today “The world is in a puddle.’ Not only is it in a puddle, but “A deeper and wider puddle than ever before.” Now, I had made no indication that I wanted to converse with this fellow. I had climbed a set of stairs on an underpass, and he had made this remark while at the top, speaking down to me. In a less sweaty element I may have stopped. Perhaps, however, things are better with my continuing on.

     First of all, puddles are not objectionable. In the last decade, I captained a fleet of Lego ships as they battled across these brackish seas, constructed stick and stone Colossi towering above the water, and ambled through as if the pool were a portal-like reflection of a mightier ocean. Few more wonderful images exist than that of the child playing in the rain. These days it is harder to find one, with many young ones choosing the Playstation over the puddle. I confess that there have been many days where I personally opted to pwn some sorry noobs in DoTA instead of frolicking in the storm. Yet there have been at the very least an equal number of days where I have confronted rambunctious Thor in the heavens above. It was in the Northeast American woods that I came across the god of the puddles below, and it is always a challenge to determine which journey was the grander.

      One day I embarked upon an adventure at the end of a downpour. At a point, I came upon a fairly drowned path, so I resolved to simply leap over it. As anyone that has had a similar experience will recollect, instead of landing in the relatively shallow water on the walkway, I plopped into the thick, muddy grass on the other side. Like any good adventurer, I had prepared for most everything. Except landing in that puddle. So that time, the above paragraph did not ring so truly to my ears. Sorrowful thing too, for this is a majority opinion amongst adults (unsurprisingly), teenagers (somewhat surprisingly), and children (sadly astounding). Nature is a terrible inconvenience for this world, and puddles are not left behind in our intolerance. People hate parking in them and having to leap across. They hate fouling plush skateboard shoes or gleaming heels in the depths. Puddles beautiful? No. An inconvenience. 

       So what if I had wet socks and a small ecosystem in my shoes throughout that days questing? I am a strong guardian of the puddle and what it represents. You will never find Sheridan Lardner hiding inside from a perfectly good tempest. But what about my Grateful Dead friend? What had his comment meant? I did not speak with him further, and I will not assume anything about his own puddle-proclivities. Yet, he meant something in his quote (unless the chap was referring to the abundance of water on the planet’s surface, in which case, ignore the rest of this piece and send me a snide email). Rare is it to come across a contemporary word puzzle, and rarer still that your eyes and paths intersect on the road. It begged an inquiry, as if the man had approached me and handed me the words on a piece of paper, “I have these words here that I can’t make heads or tails out of. What are your thoughts?”

       The world is in a fix. Even my mother, who always lectures at length on the importance of reading the newspaper, refuses to engage with current events due to the disasters therein. Far far away, bullets and bombs defile the nation of old Babylon, the rock oil that Asterix and Oblelix diligently hunted is no longer so easily found as a spout carrying the seeker high into the desert air. Consumer confidence falls like the stocks of General Motors, an election for supposed change crumbles into squabbles and accusations, and soldiers die defending their own base in a country that was supposedly pacified. Without reeling out too much doom and gloom, suffice to say that the world as a whole faces real challenges on a scale not before seen. Many contend that this is merely the rambling of overspeculative pundits, that the same anxieties existed in our parent’s and our parent’s parent’s generation, that all their worry turned out to be without real cause. Instinct should serve as a guide in these matters, and my own gut, as well as that of many others, indicates that something is terribly amiss. Pinpointing the source of global uneasiness and woes lies in the same realm as cold fusion, dark energy, and green fuel, but that is not important so far as this argument goes. All that matters is that the world does have serious problems, and that is maybe what is meant by “in a puddle.” It certainly seems reasonable, considering that the world is dominated by the types of people that hate puddles, so they naturally would place a pejorative bend on the word. And why not? Dark clouds show no sign of departure anytime soon, and their likes multiply daily.

       Two things about this argument are off. In the first place, the Grateful Dead man did not appear the type to feel similarly to puddles as the majority. There was a bit of childhood remaining. Secondly, as I have said before, in the arts, feeling is always meaning, and there is an artistic quality to his words. So when I feel that there is something more than just mere pessimism, I am inclined to think there truly is. What if the world were indeed in a puddle, but in the sense that a child is saying it. Not a miring, inconveniencing puddle, but the deep sea, portal, fragment of a far off bog sort of puddle. A kind of puddle as viewed by Guillermo Del Toro instead of Donald Trump. The puddle from which a kraken rises to beset Lego caravels, under which dark things crawl in an inky well, for which action figures from far and wide journey to swim in. Not the literal puddle under your car door, but the imaginative one, the figurative one that followed you from your fifth birthday onwards.

         Now that would be cause for hope. No true imaginative child overlooked the dark places for the light, or vice versa. As fun and carefree as puddle stomping is, or all other games associated, so too is there that sense of dread at murky mire, that same feeling when you first gazed upon some enchanted and evil swamp from whatever cartoon or story. Unknown things are within, and it seems wholly unnatural that while lakes and seas are forever there to our eyes, their offspring are so fleeting and yet just as fulfilling. This sense of unease, fear even, towards puddles surely applies to this world. Our woes and fears are aimed at the unknown and the dark, whether the darkening bank accounts, gas prices, or security prospects. A child would see it this way as well.

        But bleakness does not reign unchallenged. For all there was to cringe at in the puddle, there were equal things to grin and smile. Uncover one slimy thing and discover something  grand to even it out (not to imply there is anything wrong with the slimy ones). If this is what my Grateful Dead friend meant, then there is cause for rejoice indeed. His words acknowledge that the state of the world can either be viewed as a horrible inconvenience and barrier, or an opportunity for adventure. I fear triviality more than most, but I offer examples anyway. Students lacking in employment can either bemoan their lack of work, or revel in free days of contemplation and adventure. Those without money for gas can grimace about taking the bus, train, bike, or sidewalk, or they can laugh at the jokes they hear, the odd faces they see, the exercise they attain. Triviality will overtake these examples, if it has not already, so I must stop now. Consider, though, what it means for the world to be in a puddle. Consider it as muddy adversity for your shoes to overcome. Or see it through my own eyes.

Mirror, mirror, upon the ground, in which dreams dwelled and reality drowned.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ZIMUGABEWE VS ZIMORGANWE
The Editor, Sheridan Lardner
Week of June 23-29

    Like most nations in the region, Zimbabwe has just seen its bid for real progress imprisoned, tortured, stomped, beaten, and shot by President-backed goongsquads from across the country. With almost 100 critical officers of the incumbent M.D.C dead, thousands more wounded, and hundreds of thousands displaced, Mugabe and his ZANU-PF has won another round, and will likely be staying for just a little bit longer. We can lament democracy's loss to the clearly illegitimate tactics of Mugabe's cronies. We can call down all sorts of AU, UN, American special-forces, fire on top of his head. And we can always write disappointed and incensed opinions pieces. But perhaps Morgan Tsvangirai's June 23 dropping out is a good thing. Yes, he only dropped out because of increasing violence against his supporters and a genuine care for their wellbeing. That being said, at this point in Zimbabwe's time, a M.D.C government would not succeed. Two obstacles stand firmly entrenched between Mr. Tsvanigirai and any possible success in the nation, even if he had beaten Mugabe in the runoff.

    On a patently obvious level, even if Morgan had claimed 102% of the votes (as Mugabe likely has in the past), the ZANU-PF leader would not have stepped down peacefully. In fact, he would not have stepped down at all. He would have remained in Harare, sent his legions of barely-legitimate soldiers and totally unjustifiable youth gangs to eliminate all opposition, and sat comfortably on the undeniable truth that a man cannot become president if he is dead, which Morgan surely would have been. In many African nations, control of presidential power translates to total control of armed force. Trying to beat Mugabe at the game of Zimbabwe politics is like playing Monopoly against a guy who has hotels on 3/4 of all properties, compared to your few houses down near Baltic Avenue. And he can reroll the dice. And there's no such thing as "just visiting" in jail. In fact, it seems every chance card has that same policeman on it, except he has an AK-47 instead of a whistle.
    A victory by Morgan at the ballot box would have translated to a massacre in the streets, of that there is no doubt. Mugabe himself proudly stated, a smile on his face, "How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?" Or at another rally (not that he needs rally's to drum up support), "Only God who appointed me will remove me - not the MDC, not the British!" Don't remind Mugabe that the British have about as much influence on the Zimbabwe elections as LaRouche has on ours.  Regardless of the specific words, Mugabe was clear. Hell no he won't go.
    An even worse possibility lingered in the air. What if Morgan actually legitimately lost? Never mind that this loss would be due to the incessant and brutal intimidation tactics used by Mugabe on voters and MDC party officials. If the ballots had proclaimed Mugabe as the winner, Zimbabwe would have little to hope for. As it stands, there is a high possibility of outcry against the outrageous actions of Mugabe. But, had a legitimate win been achieved (despite the threats), Mugabe would have more force in his counter arguments. More importantly, the people of Zimbabwe would feel defeated. As of now, at least from my ocean-away perspective, it seems they feel more cheated than anything else. Yet, the fire of change and Morgan still burns within, at least to an extent. A loss at the ballot box would have extinguished this fire. Once Mugabe leaves this world, their sentiments will remain, and Morgan or Morgan 2.0 can come and fulfill their desires. This may have been severely threatened if Mugabe proved he could win semi-legitimately.

   Now, let us imagine that Mugabe not only lost the ballot battle, but the bullet one too. Maybe he falls to an army coup. Maybe outside pressures kick him out. Maybe he wakes up one morning and does a moral 180, apologizes for his deeds, and cedes power to the rightful ruler, Mr. Tsvangirai. All these scenarios are painfully unlikely in reality, but up until June 23, they were the possibilities entertained by MDC hopefuls. So, let us imagine one of them happens and Morgan Tsvangirai becomes President of Zimbabwe. Out of the woods (er jungle) yet? Not at all. Best case scenario would be a gradual push towards improvement, against all geographic odds and against those bitter Mugabe supporters still lingering around with their grudges and guns. With enough foreign aid and internal spirits, this could succeed. But, if African history is any indicator of things to come, a more likely alternative would spawn. From Liberia to the Congo, Somalia to Rwanda, the transition from anarchy/despotism/police state to democracy and liberation has always been a horribly dangerous transformation. On the one hand, so many forces could spoil the party. But on an equally horrifying hand, the party-thrower could get a bit too heady.
    If Mr. Tsvangirai were to attain power and beat back all the odds, there is no guarantee that he would not become a dictator in the Taylor, Mugabe, Aidid, Amin fashion. History is certainly against him in this case. If Morgan were to rally his own MDC mobs to put down the old Mugabe loyalists and their supporters, it could be a recipe for Rwandan or Sudanese genocide. Or even worse. This would be a huge blow to democracy in Africa, showing that even a fully democratically elected leader is not immune to the hunger for power and the forces that government places in his hand. Democracy will have another shot in Zimbabwe in the future. But it has failed so badly this time. Sadly, perhaps its next 'shot' will be a bit more literal and bit more deadly.