Jarrod Gilbert on gang warfare

Jarrod Gilbert returns to the Herald and writes:

Conflict between gangs rarely occurs without cause, and often leads to tit-for-tat retaliations and an escalation in violence. As has been the case recently, that escalation can endanger the public.

In these instances, police need to respond quickly and surgically to de-escalate matters. What that means is identifying the specific chapters of the gangs involved and blanket-policing them; investigating all matters involving their members and prosecuting even minor crimes, pulling them over at every opportunity, investigating old matters and generally staying on their tails.

Excellent idea. I hope the Police listen.

This approach is resource-intensive and therefore necessarily short-term, but it has three important effects.

Firstly, the suffocating nature of the policing means attempts at retaliation are made more difficult, allowing a cooling-off period that creates a firebreak in the escalation.

Secondly, it shows the gangs — both those involved and all other groups — that there are very real consequences for such actions and encourages the leadership and senior members to keep their men in line.

And finally, this blanket policing demonstrates public concern and ensures affected communities feel these matters are being taken seriously.

Consequences are a good thing.

Take family violence, for just one example, and the fact that on average one in every five weeks a kid is killed in a domestic setting. That is a far bigger issue with immense flow-on effects for the poor wee mites living in those households. For every innocent child that is brutally killed, there are scores who survive only to grow up dysfunctional and angry, often becoming the next generation of offenders.

Yet, we don’t discuss that massive problem nearly as much as we do the gangs.

Can only agree.