This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Perceptions of gangs among prosecutors in an emerging gang city☆,☆☆

Kathleen A. Fox a,⁎, Jodi Lane b

a Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 2296, Huntsville, Texas 77341-2296, United Statesb Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117330; 3219 Turlington Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7330, United States

a b s t r a c t

Gangs were a target of widespread political and social attention during the 1990s, and despite a short-livedlull in policy focus, gangs are recently receiving increased attention from policymakers. In spite of politicalconcern about gangs, very little research had examined perceptions of gangs. By conducting face-to-faceinterviews with thirty of thirty-five county prosecutors, this study was among the first to examineprosecutors' perspectives of gangs in Gainesville, Florida, an area that could be considered an “emerging”gang city. Themes from the interviews were extracted and included prosecutorial perceptions of the:(1) definition and prevalence of gangs in Gainesville, Florida; (2) personal and social characteristics of gangmembers; (3) reasons people join gangs; and (4) best approaches to stop or eliminate gangs. The ways inwhich prosecutors' perspectives mirror prior research on gangs is highlighted.

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Research on gangs had primarily focused on various aspects ofmembership and delinquency and had often overlooked perceptionsof gangs. While much of the prior research on gangs focused on large“chronic” gang cities (places with an extensive history of gangs), asubstantial amount of research had also examined “emerging” gangcities (places with recent increases in gang activity) (Spergel & Curry,1993). A considerable bodyof research examinedgangswithin emerginggang cities, such as Columbus, Ohio (J. Miller, 1998); Denver, Colorado(Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, 1993); Kansas City, Missouri (Fleisher,1998); Las Cruces, New Mexico (Winfree, Mays, & Vigil-Backstrom,1994);1 Las Vegas, Nevada (McCorkle & Miethe, 1998); Milwaukee,Wisconsin (Hagedorn, 1988); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Loeber,Stouthamer-Loeber, van Kammen, & Farrington, 1991); Rochester,New York (Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, & Chard-Wierschem, 1993);San Diego, California (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998); and SanFrancisco, California (Waldorf, 1993). Furthermore, the Gang ResistanceEducationandTraining(G.R.E.A.T.)nationalevaluationexaminedseveralemerging gang cities, including Portland, Oregon and Lincoln andOmaha, Nebraska (Esbensen, Osgood, Taylor, Peterson, & Freng, 2001).Yet, prior research on emerging gang cities had primarily focused on thecorrelates of gang membership rather than examining perceptions ofgangs.What is less understood arepublic orpolicymakers' perceptionsof

gang activities. While some research had examined the perceptions ofgangs among police, youth, students, and teachers (Johnson,Webster, Connors, & Saenz, 1995; Katz & Webb, 2006; St. Cyr &Decker, 2003; Swetnam & Pope, 2001), prosecutors' perceptions ofgangs, especially within an emerging gang city, is largely unknown.

This exploratory study addressed gaps in the literature by focusingon prosecutors' perspectives on four related questions: (1) Whatis the definition and prevalence of gangs in Gainesville, Florida?(2)What are the social and personal characteristics of gangmembers?(3)What are the reasons people join gangs? and (4)What are the bestapproaches to stop or eliminate gangs? The following section firstreviews the limited literature that examined prosecutors' perceptionsof gangs and then presents research on each of the four issues ofinterest in the current study.

Importance of prosecutors' perceptions of gangs

Understandingprosecutors' perspectives of gangs is important giventhe power prosecutors have over offenders' - and gang members' -criminal cases and the influence they sometimes have over legislation.Prosecutors typically have substantial discretion over the nature ofcriminal charges, sanctions, and the decision regarding whether or notto pursue gang-enhanced charges (Jackson, 2004; Walker, 1993).Moreover, prosecutors often participate in gang-related programmingand create task-forces that influence gang-related policies (Gramckow& Tompkins, 1999). Indeed, prosecutors' perceptions of gang membersdirectly influence their responses and reactions to gang members.Decker and Kempf-Leonard (1991) suggest that policymakers' percep-tions of gangs may be even more important than the public'sperceptions given that, “in a very real sense, the response of policy-makers to gangs defines them as a social problem” (p. 274). Ultimately,

Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

☆ The authors wish to thank District Attorney Bill Cervone for permitting theresearchers to interview Alachua County state prosecutors. The authors also thank theparticipating prosecutors for their time and valuable insight.☆☆ This paper was accepted under the Editorship of Kent Joscelyn.

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 936 294 4748; fax: +1 936 294 1653.E-mail address: katefox@shsu.edu (K.A. Fox).

0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.031

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

Author's personal copy

understanding prosecutors' perceptions of gangs is critical for recog-nizing and interpreting legal responses to gangs.

Couched in the “emerging” gang city perspective, the current studyattempted to address gaps in the literature by contributing to the existingresearch on gangs in at least two important ways. First, the presentstudy was one of the few to assess prosecutors' perceptions of gangs.Prosecutors offer a unique perspective on crime, given that they areexposed to crime and offenders daily. Second, this research focused onperspectives of gangs in a unique location – the medium-sized growingcity of Gainesville, Florida, whichmight be considered an emerging gangcity (Spergel & Curry, 1993). Although some research had examinedsocial and demographic characteristics of gangmembers, gang activities,reasons for joining gangs, and programs and policies designed to reduceor eliminate gangs, prosecutors' perceptions of these issues have beenlargely overlooked. Gaining an understanding of prosecutors' percep-tions about gang members and gang activity is critical to understandingand addressing gangs given the impact prosecutors have on gangmembers, their cases, and policy. Consequently, prosecutors from amedium-sized citywere interviewed regarding their perceptions of localgangs, their knowledge of the personal and social characteristics of gangmembers, their beliefs about the reasons for joining gangs, and theirrecommendations for stopping gangs.

Prior research on prosecutors' perceptions of gangs

Despite the important role prosecutors' play in the prosecution ofgangs, only a handful of studies had examined prosecutors' perspec-tives of gangs. Furthermore, in the scant research that had assessedprosecutors' perspectives of gangs, the samples were comprised ofother individuals of interest as well, including law enforcement,school officials, politicians, probation and parole officers, andcorrectional personnel (Johnson et al., 1995; Katz & Webb, 2006;McCorkle & Miethe, 1998). Although prosecutors were not the onlyfocus, these important studies identified interesting similarities anddifferences with other key criminal justice personnel. For example,Johnson et al. (1995) identified many similarities between prosecu-tors and law enforcement officials' survey responses regardingperceptions of a growing gang “problem” within the communities,types of crimes gang members often engaged in (drugs and violence),and a perceived lack of early intervention programs designed toeliminate gangs. Similarly, Katz and Webb (2006) discovered manysimilar perceptions about gangs obtained from interviews with lawenforcement and other stakeholders (including attorneys).

Other research indicatedprosecutors had somedifferent perceptionsof gangs in comparison with law enforcement. McCorkle and Miethe(1998) interviewed a variety of individuals expected to have the mostexposure to gangs, including prosecutors, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Whilethe study was not primarily focused on prosecutorial perspectives ofgang crime, the authors reported that prosecutors were uncomfortablewith the way the police broadly identified and labeled individuals asgang members. Interestingly, prosecutors reported that while prose-cuting gang members, they learned that gang stereotypes were notrealistic. Instead of “criminal enterprises,” prosecutors described gangsas “simply loose, shifting associations without stable leadership, roleexpectations, or collective goals” (McCorkle & Miethe, 1998, p. 60),whichwas consistent withmost prior research on gangs (Decker, 1996;Howell, 2000; Klein, 1995; Klein & Maxson, 2006). Overall, the limitedresearch on prosecutors' perceptions of gangs offered importantpreliminary insights that suggest further exploration of prosecutorialperspectives of gangs is essential given the impact prosecutors have ongang members and their cases.

Definitions and prevalence of gangs

Defining gangs has been a consistent focus of gang research(Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001). While a comprehensive

discussion of the variety of gang definitions among scholars andlegislationwas beyond the scope of this study, severalmain definitionalfeatures will briefly be mentioned here (see Ball & Curry, 1995, for adetailed discussion of gang definitions). Some gang definitions arelimited to street gangs, which require the members to spend timetogether outside of other institutions, such as home, school, or work(Klein & Maxson, 2006). Other definitions are limited to youth gangs,and prohibit the inclusion of motorcycle gangs, prison gangs, suprem-acist groups, political terrorists, organized crimegroups, and adult gangs(Klein, 1995; National Youth Gang Center [NYGC], 2009). Furthermore,some gang definitions require involvement with deviant and/orcriminal behavior (Klein & Maxson, 2006), whereas others do not(Short, 1996). Klein and Maxson (2006) offer one of the mostparsimonious definitions of gangs, which characterize a street gang as“any durable, street-oriented youth groupwhose involvement in illegalactivity is part of its group identity” (p. 4).

Identifying the prevalence of gangs and gang members alsocontinues to present challenges for legislators and researchers alike(Spergel, 1990). The prevalence of gangs hasmost often beenmeasuredusing survey research to directly assess gang membership through self-reports (i.e., G.R.E.A.T.) or indirectly by surveying criminal justicepersonnel (NYGC, 2009). Self-report surveys indicated approximately11 percent of elementary and high school students admitted gangmembership (Esbensen&Winfree, 1998;Gover, Jennings, & Tewksbury,2009). Recent National Youth Gang Survey estimates from lawenforcement officials suggested that larger cities (with populationsover 50,000) had more gangs and more gang members than smallercities (with populations between 2,500 and 49,999) (NYGC, 2009). Intermsof gangs, theNYGC (2009) reported that 34 percent of larger citieshad seven to fifteen gangs (compared to 16 percent for smaller cities),17 percent of larger cities had sixteen to thirty gangs (compared to 4percent for smaller cities), and 22 percent of larger cities had over thirtygangs (while none of the smaller cities reported over thirty gangs). Interms of gang members, over 50 percent of smaller cities reported lessthan fifty gangmembers while 82 percent of larger cities reportedmorethan fifty gang members (with 21 percent of large cities reporting over1,000 gang members) (NYGC, 2009).

As discussed earlier, very few studies have assessed prosecutors'perceptions of gangs; however, those that do described prosecutors'beliefs about prevalence with more generalities than specificprevalence rates. For example, a prosecutor interviewed by Katz andWebb (2006, p. 97) said that the gang problem “is very extensive”while Johnson et al. (1995) indicated that the majority of prosecutors(78 percent) in large and small jurisdictions believed that violent gangcrime had increased. Given that limitations plague all availablemethods to assess the prevalence of gangs and gang members (e.g.,inconsistent record-keeping across jurisdictions, inability to track allgang members, under-reporting and over-reporting involvementwith gangs), it is important to assess perspectives from a variety ofsources to better realize consistencies and trends.

Personal and social characteristics of gangs

Prior research identified personal demographic characteristics ofgang members (i.e., gender, age, and race/ethnicity) using data fromlaw enforcement, general public, and gang members. In terms ofgender differences in gang membership, law enforcement surveyedby the National Youth Gang Center indicated over 90 percent of gangmembers were male (NYGC, 2009). Furthermore, prior research hadlargely interviewed male gang members (Decker & VanWinkle,1996; Thrasher, 1927; but see Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995; Miller,2002; Miller & Decker, 2001; and Zatz & Portillos, 2000 on gang girls).Alternatively, self-report surveys indicated that females comprised asubstantial portion of gangs. Cross-sectional and longitudinal surveydata suggested 35-38 percent of gang members were female(Esbensen & Winfree, 1998; Gover et al., 2009; Peterson, Taylor, &

596 K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

Esbensen, 2004). While estimates of female involvement in gangsvaried based on the sample of interest (e.g., law enforcement, generalpublic, gang members), prior research has established that males aremore likely to be gang members than females (Howell, 1998).

In terms of the age of gang members, law enforcement agenciesindicated that gang members in larger cities were more likely to beover age eighteen and younger than eighteen years old in smaller cities(NYGC, 2009). In a review of the literature on gang members, Howell(1998) suggested that gangmembers tend to be twelve to twenty-fouryears old although he pointed out that the proportion of both youngerand older gang members have increased. While researchers tend toagree that gangs are comprised of members from all age groups, theproportion of older versus younger gang members remains unclear,perhaps due to the limited number of self-report surveys that targetadults rather than focus solely on juveniles (e.g., Esbensen &Winfree,1998; Gover et al., 2009; Peterson et al., 2004).

Research examining the racial and ethnic composition of gangmembers suggested that racial minorities comprise a substantialportion of gangs, and this finding has largely been linked to lowersocioeconomic status (Howell, 1998; Miller, 1974). Law enforcementagencies reported that gangs are largely Hispanic/Latino (47 percentin large cities and 48 percent in small cities) and African American/Black (38 percent in large cities and 33 percent in small cities) (NYGC,2009). Furthermore, some research also focused exclusively on racialminority gang members (Chin, Fagan, & Kelly, 1992; Cureton, 2002;Tsunokai & Kposowa, 2002; Vigil, 2002). Alternatively, some self-report survey data indicated that Whites are as likely to admit togang membership as Blacks and Hispanics (Esbensen & Winfree,1998; Peterson et al., 2004).

Gang members reported engaging in a variety of illegal and legalsocial activities (Klein, 1995; Spergel, 1990). While gang membersengage in fighting, violence, and crime, scholars indicate that gangmembers primarily ‘hang out’ together and socialize with each other(Decker, 1996; Decker & VanWinkle, 1996; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995;Thornberry et al., 1993). Klein (1995) remarked that gang members“do very little – sleep, get up late, hang around, brag a lot, eat again,drink, hang around some more. It's a boring life; the only thing that isequally boring is being a researcher watching gang members” (p. 11).

Reasons for joining gangs

Interviews and self-report surveys indicated that gang membersjoin gangs for a variety of reasons. For example, interviews with gangmembers revealed that many joined gangs due to living in a high-crime and low socioeconomic neighborhood, violence within thehome, boredom, to meet or impress girls, and because friends orfamily members were gang members (Decker & Curry, 2000; Joe &Chesney-Lind, 1995). Self-report surveys suggested that gang mem-bers join gangs for many of the same reasons as well as forentertainment, protection, respect, and money (Peterson et al., 2004).

While asking gang members directly through interviews or surveysabout their personal reasons for joining gangs revealed interesting andvaluable information, criminal justice personnel may provide equallyimportant information about the reasons people join gangs. Giventhe nature of their profession, criminal justice personnel are oftenknowledgeable about the physical, social, and family environment towhich offenders (and gang members) are exposed. Criminal justicepersonal are unique in that theymay possess at least a partial “insider's”perspective of offenders and gang members while maintaining theseparation of an “outsider.” This combination of “insider” and “outsider”perspectives might allow criminal justice personnel to identify reasonsfor joining gangs more objectively than gang members themselves.Despite the advantage criminal justice personnel may have in explain-ing gang membership, very little research has explored this resource.One important exception is the Law Enforcement Mail Questionnaireconducted by Knox, Tromanhauser, Jackson, Niklas, Houston, Koch, and

Sutton (1993). Knox et al. (1993) discovered that the majority of lawenforcement officers (approximately 75 percent) believed parentingproblems was the primary reason for gang membership, in addition topoor self-esteem,desire for acceptance, peer pressure, protection, fear ofpersonal injury, family members' gang membership, and financial gain.

Stopping gangs

Much research has examined policies and programs designed to stopor eliminate gangs. Some programs focused specifically on prevention(e.g., G.R.E.A.T.), intervention (e.g., Boys and Girls Club), and suppression(e.g., police and prosecutor responses), while others were morecomprehensive (e.g., the SpergelModel) (Howell, 2000; Klein &Maxson,2006). While many programs and policies have been established toaddress thegangproblem,most havenot beenempirically evaluated and,therefore, their effectiveness at reducing or eliminating gangs is largelyunknown(Klein&Maxson, 2006). In the absenceof programevaluations,researchers have employed alternative methods in an effort tounderstand perceptions of promising ways to stop or reduce gangmembership. More specifically, perceptions of both gang members andlaw enforcement officers have often been the primary sources of thisinformation. Interestingly, Decker (1996) reported that gang membersbelieved the best way to get rid of gangs would be to use extremeviolence to exterminate the members and, therefore, the gang. Lawenforcement personnel perceived more training and funding for gang-related enforcement were important ways to combat gangs (Knox et al.,1993). Prosecutors have not yet been queried about ways to stop gangs,yet individuals from this branch of the criminal justice system mayprovide a unique and important perspective of what works to reducegang membership. As mentioned earlier, prosecutors' profession mayelicit more of an “insider's” perspective of gang members.

Method

The context: Gainesville, Florida

Gainesville, Florida is an ideal city to examine gang crime given thatit is different from the locations previously studied by gang researchers.Located in north-central Florida, Gainesville is amedium-sized citywitha population of approximately 122,671 residents. Gainesville wasnamed the #1 best place to live in America by Money Magazine in1995 andwas recently, in 2007, named one of thefifty best places to liveand play by National Geographic Adventure Magazine (City ofGainesville, 2007). The city may be best known as the home of theUniversity of Florida, with a college population of approximately 50,000students (University of Florida, 2008). While Gainesville has enjoyed arapid growth rate in recent years, the city still suffers from a degree oftraditional spatial segregation. The east side, in particular, has notexperienced much of the city's growth and is comprised primarily ofracialminorities and people of lower socioeconomic status, whereas thewest side is comprised largely of White middle- and upper-classresidents who have benefitted from the economic and financial growth.

Unlike many locations previously studied, Gainesville is amedium-sized city and does not have a reputation for out-of-controlgang activity. Yet, practitioner concern about gangs is evident. Forexample, in the summer of 2007 State Attorney General, BillMcCollum, sponsored a summit wherein state agencies created theFlorida Gang Reduction Strategy with goals of stopping the growth ofgangs and reducing the number of gang members (McCollum, 2008).Furthermore, in October 2007 the local sheriff's office in Gainesvilleappointed a patrol officer to begin investigating and monitoring gangactivity in the area (personal communication, 2009). Given the recentconcern about gangs from law enforcement in Gainesville and SenatorFeinstein's claim that “gang violence is no longer a big city problem”

(Press release, 2007), Gainesville is an ideal location for exploringperceptions of and concern about gangs.

597K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

Sampling and data collection procedures

The population of interest for the current studywas state prosecutorsworking inGainesville, Florida (AlachuaCounty). Permission to interviewprosecutors regarding their perceptions of crime and gangswas obtainedfrom the State Attorney inGainesville, who also provided the researcherswith a list of all local state prosecutors housed in the Gainesville office.There were thirty-five prosecutors and face-to-face interviews wereconducted with thirty (86 percent of the prosecutors).2 Interviews wereconducted between September 2007 and January 2008. All but one of theinterviews occurred in individual prosecutors' offices andone occurred ata coffee shop. Before each interview, prosecutorswere asked to completea short survey comprised of demographic and personal questions andwere also asked to keep one copy of an informed consent form for theirrecords and sign and return another to the researchers. Interviews lastedbetween twenty minutes to an hour, with the majority lastingapproximately forty minutes. Prosecutors participated voluntarily andreceived no compensation for their participation. Of the thirty partici-pants, the majority were male (n=23) and White (n=27). Table 1presents a summary of prosecutors' demographic characteristics.

Given that the research was exploratory, the interview questionswere open-ended and included some modified questions from Lane(2002). Somequestions included the following:Doyoubelieve there aregangs or gangmembers living in Gainesville? Do you have any personalexperience with gangs or gang members in Gainesville? What do youthink is their composition in terms of age, race, ethnicity and gender?Why do you think people join gangs? What do you think is the bestapproach to stoporget rid of gangs?3Prosecutorswere asked to respondto the questions based on their experiences with the system.

All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim withthe exception of three interviews which, at the request of theinterviewees, were recorded using only handwritten notes. Tran-scripts were then coded by hand by the research team to extractthemes that emerged. The following section presents the findings andhighlights prosecutorial perceptions of: (1) the definitions andprevalence of gangs in Gainesville, Florida; (2) the personal and socialcharacteristics of gang members; (3) the reasons why people joingangs; and (4) the best approaches to stop or eliminate gangs. Directquotations from the interviews are provided to illustrate the themes.

Results

Definitions and prevalence of Gainesville gangs

Given that legal and research definitions of gangs vary widely, anda universal definition describing the characteristics of gangs isnonexistent, prosecutors were not provided with a definition of

‘gangs.’ Instead, respondents provided their own definitions of gangs.Interestingly, most of the prosecutors acknowledged that themeaningof ‘gang’ could be interpreted in many ways, but respondentsappeared to describe gang characteristics that were similar to eachother. For example, attributes such as organization, a hierarchicalstructure, similar signs and colors, and a common goal or purposewithin a group context were mentioned often (see Decker &VanWinkle, 1996; Howell & Lynch, 2000). Two respondents men-tioned the Florida Statues and another conducted an internet searchfor the definition during the interview. In an effort to define gangs,over one-third of the respondents (n=11) mentioned the Bloodsand/or the Crips as examples of gangs. Many prosecutors' definitionsof gangs involved some type of deviant or criminal behavior, asoutlined in the following definition of gangs from one prosecutor:

A group of people with a common purpose who engage incriminal activity, anti-social behavior, even if doesn't rise [to] thelevel of criminal activity, with a common goal. That's enough [tobe a gang]. (Interview 10)

Like researchers and legislators, prosecutors linked gangs withcriminal and/or delinquent activities (Klein & Maxson, 2006).Interestingly, considering the context of Gainesville as a college-town, four prosecutors mentioned the possibility of defining univer-sity fraternities and sororities as gangs. One prosecutor remarked:

I'm wondering if we could classify fraternities as gangs for causingDUIs. And sororities. They all have colors, they have signs, theyhave secret handshakes, they engage in illegal behavior andencourage drinking and driving…I think that that is a realproblem and we don't think about fraternities and sororities andany other organization on campus that way, as a gang, becausethey're not out dealing drugs and committing violent crimes.However, they are instigating a culture which leads to criminalbehavior…We see that all the time. (Interview 18)

One prosecutor countered this sentiment by stating:

None of their [gangs] aims are healthy. It's not the junior league,it's not a fraternity, and it's not a sorority. Their aim is not to cleanup the streets or engage in community service. Their aim is toeither harm other people directly or indirectly through the salesof drugs or directly through violence. (Interview 14)

While prosecutors recognized the challenge in providing astraightforward definition of gangs, they were far less ambiguouswhen reacting to questions about the presence of gangs in Gainesville.The overwhelmingly majority of prosecutors (n=25) acknowledgedthat there were gangs and/or gang members living in Gainesville andtwo additional prosecutors indicated that gangs were “probably” inGainesville, depending on the definition of the term. The remainingthree prosecutors reported that gangs were not in Gainesville, yet allthree qualified their responses by explaining that their definition ofgangs focused on traditionally national gangs.

Interestingly, when prosecutors were asked what types of gangswere in Gainesville, all respondents (those in agreement that gangsexist, those who believe gangs probably exist, and those whodisagreed that gangs exist in Gainesville) described remarkablysimilar qualities of gangs in Gainesville. Gainesville gangs wererepeatedly characterized as unorganized, loosely associated, andneighborhood-based (see Decker, 1996; Howell, 2000; Klein, 1995;Klein & Maxson, 2006; McCorkle & Miethe, 1998). Two prosecutorslabeled Gainesville gangs as “hybrid” gangs, which were described asformations of groups who shared commonalities, who engaged indeviant and/or criminal behavior, and who identified as gangs (seeStarbuck, Howell, & Lindquist, 2001); however, these groups were

Table 1Characteristics of prosecutors (n=30)

Number Percent

GenderMale 23 77Female 7 23

RaceWhite 27 90Black 3 10

Political party affiliationRepublican 13 43Democrat 11 37Independent 6 20

Range Mean (SD)

Age 25 to 57 38 (9.23)Years of prosecutorial experience .5 to 29 9 (7.02)

598 K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

characterized as unorganized, lacking control of the crime and theresidents in Gainesville, and were not national gangs. Whendescribing what may be termed as “hybrid” gangs, several respon-dents (n=9) contrasted the Bloods and the Crips with Gainesvillegangs, indicating that Gainesville did not have these kinds of “big city”gangs or gang problems. While prosecutors were in agreement thatnational gangs in their entirety were not a problem in Gainesville,several prosecutors (n=6) reported knowledge of local individualsaffiliated with national gangs, including the Latin Kings, GangsterDisciples, Jamaican Mafia, and the Bloods. One prosecutor was quickto point out that the loosely-organized neighborhood gangs andindividuals associated with national gangs were, indeed, problematic:

What I see in Gainesville are young hoodlum wannabes. They'renot sophisticated, they're not educated, they're not stupid, theirintelligence levels are often very high, but they choose to be littleAl Capones. And they get together with two or three or four or fiveof their buddies and go off on these streets, whether it's breakinginto cars, like [what] happened three days ago, or breaking intohouses or committing these robberies, and that's what I think ofas gangs in Gainesville. (Interview 2)

Another prosecutor described initiation rites and commitment togangs as major differences between national gangs and Gainesvillegangs. The prosecutor described local initiation and commitment togangs similarly to other emerging gang cities (Howell, 2000):

They do go under a similar name, they do associate with eachother, they are likely to fight people that they think are from therival gang. Fortunately for us, we don't have this sort of gangsituation where you are blessed in or somehow have some sort ofinitiation to get in and therefore are never permitted out. Wedon't have that at all. As matter fact, evidence locally shows thatkids can freely move between…our little gangs from one toanother pretty much relatively safely and it often goes by justwhere you live. (Interview 4)

Prosecutors were also in general agreement that Gainesville gangswere not only less like gangs in big cities in terms of characteristics,but were also less prevalent in comparison with large cities. Severalprosecutors (n=6) contrasted Gainesville's moderate gang preva-lence with the widespread gang problem in Los Angeles and NewYork. One prosecutor said:

Yes, there is gang crime here in Alachua County. Nothing to theextent that you would find in Miami or New York or some of thebig, the huge metropolitan, densely populated areas. I think againthe perception is that there aren't gangs in Gainesville, but thetruth of the matter is that there are. It doesn't get a lot of media, sopeople think there's not an issue and I don't think it's the biggestproblem in Gainesville, no, but there are gangs. (Interview 16)

Although prosecutors did not perceive gangs as being rampant inGainesville, prosecutors indicated that gangs were more prevalentthan many believed and one prosecutor stated:

We see them all the time, prosecute them all the time…We haveprobably identified I would say 30 different gangs of children,gang names, in Alachua County. Not meaning 30 children,meaning 30 different gangs. (Interview 4)

Another prosecutor described an experience prosecuting a member ofthe Latin Kings for first degree murder:

We were concerned about this guy [being] associated with theLatin Kings and he [a police officer] was able to show me the

notice that GPD [Gainesville Police Department] had beenconcerned about and so I saw the whole list. It was like threepages long of just different people who were now connectedlocally with the Latin Kings. And so I'm more aware of it.(Interview 29)

Overall, prosecutors recognized definitional issues associated withdefining gangs and, yet, they were able to articulate generaldefinitional characteristics of gangs, both nationally and locally.Prosecutors perceived national gangs as possessing an organizationalhierarchical structure, similar signs and colors, and a common goal orpurpose within a group context. Prosecutors perceived local gangs asunorganized, loosely associated, and neighborhood-based with lessstringent initiation andmembership requirements. While prosecutorsbelieved local gangs were less pervasive than big city gangs, somerespondents indicated that local gangs were prevalent in thecommunity and within the criminal justice system.

Personal and social characteristics of gangs

Of the twenty-five prosecutors that indicated gangs existed inGainesville, each were asked follow-up questions about local gangs'personal characteristics in terms of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and locationof residence. In terms of age, all of these prosecutors (n=25) agreedthat gang members were primarily juveniles (see Howell, 2000).Furthermore, all respondents indicated that gang members age out oftheir gang affiliation before the age of thirty, although two prosecutorssuggested that some gangmembers tend to remain committed to gangsbeyond their youth. One of these prosecutors remarked that a local gangmember from the Latin Kings was prosecuted while he was in his mid-twenties and another member was over the age of forty.

All of the prosecutors who were asked about the sex of local gangmembers maintained that they were primarily male (n=25). Oneprosecutor said that 98 percent of the gang members were male.Others suggested that females could be gang members, although theywere clearly in the minority, if they existed at all. Only one prosecutorreported knowing a female gang member. This is in line with theextant literature on gangs, which primarily focused on male gangmembers (Klein & Maxson, 2006). When asked about the race of localgangs, fourteen prosecutors agreed that gang members were largelyBlack, one believed they were mostly White, and four indicated thatgang members were comprised of all races and could not identify anyrace in particular. The remaining six either did not know or did notidentify any races. One prosecutor pointed out that gangs were oftenformed on the basis of race (see Klein & Maxson, 2006; Vigil, 2002).The majority of the prosecutors who were asked about the location ofgangs (n=15) believed that gang members lived in the lowersocioeconomic neighborhoods on the east side (including thenortheast and southeast areas) of the city (see Decker & VanWinkle,1996). Five other prosecutors reported that gang members lived allover the city, including the wealthier and poorer areas, fourprosecutors did not identify the locations of gang members'residences, and one prosecutor said that gang members primarilylived in jail. He stated:

They're probably in jail. In and out of jail, and I think that'shistorically one of the ways gangs grow or are born is thenetworking that goes on in the jail. (Interview 18)

Of the twenty-five prosecutors that agreed gangs existed inGainesville, eighteen identified a variety of activities in which localgang members were typically involved. Consistent with priorresearch, prosecutors acknowledged that gang members mostly“hang out” (n=8) and engaged in non-criminal antisocial activities(n=2), such as skipping school, being rude, and being verballyassaultive (Decker, 1996; Decker & VanWinkle, 1996; Joe & Chesney-

599K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

Lind, 1995; Klein, 1995; Thornberry et al., 1993). While generalpersonal crimes were mentioned by five prosecutors, more specifictypes of personal crimes that were mentioned by some prosecutorsincluded fighting (n=7), assault (n=2), robbery (n=1), violentcrime (n=1), violent crime with a weapon (n=2), extortion (n=1),and drug rip-offs (n=1).4 General property crimes were mentionedby five prosecutors and more specific types of property crimesincluded burglary (n=6), theft (n=5), vandalism/criminal mischief(n=2), and possession of stolen property (n=1). Involvement withdrugs was mentioned by ten prosecutors, and included buying,selling, trafficking, possessing, and transporting illegal narcotics.Other types of criminal involvement by gang members includedprostitution (n=2) and illegal dog fighting (n=1). One prosecutordescribed typical gang activities and drew attention to the severity ofgang violence:

Mostly just hanging around, to be honest. Hanging around,skipping school. They do commit property crimes together, but Idon't believe they do that for the benefit of the gang…Although,the one thing that they do most often is fight with each other…And then there's a lot of retaliatory sort of [behavior]…That canget very dangerous. Our kids don't necessarily, or rarely do they,fight with just their fists. The incidents that we've seen havealmost always been weapons, things like crowbars and rarely, butit definitely happens, firearms. (Interview 4)

The excerpt above suggests that while gang members committedcrimes together, the criminal behavior is “gang-affiliated” or “gang-related” and not necessarily “gang-motivated.” This is consistent withprior research that distinguishes between gang-affiliated/gang-relat-ed crimes (involving gang members but does not result from gangmembership) versus gang-motivated crimes (resulting from gangmembership) (Rosenfeld, Bray, & Egley, 1999). This sentiment wasalso echoed by other prosecutors, who described gang members asnaturally criminal regardless of their gang affiliations, given that themajority of their cases involving gangmemberswere not gang-related.The quotation above also describes the severity of violence amonggang members. While local gangs were repeatedly characterized byprosecutors as less violent than big city gangs, they were clearlyinvolved in dangerous behavior that often involves the use ofweapons.

In sum, prosecutors perceived gang members as juvenile males,primarily Black but also a variety of other races including White,Hispanic, and Asian. Furthermore, the majority of prosecutorsbelieved gang members lived in the lower socioeconomic neighbor-hoods on the east side of the city. Prosecutors also identified a numberof activities typically engaged in by gang members, which includednon-criminal activities (i.e., “hanging out” and antisocial behavior) aswell as criminal activities (i.e., personal crimes, property crimes, anddrug involvement) (see Decker, 1996; Decker & VanWinkle, 1996; Joe& Chesney-Lind, 1995; Klein, 1995; Thornberry et al., 1993).

Reasons for joining gangs

Given the criminal and social implications of gangs, it is importantto identify reasons why some individuals choose to join gangs, whichmay aid in generating techniques to combat gangs (see the followingsection for prosecutors' recommendations on stopping gangs).Prosecutors were asked why they thought people joined gangs andtheir responses involved a combination of factors. The most commonresponses among the thirty prosecutors included: to belong to a groupor to have friends (n=15), a lack of family support (n=14), and alack of financial opportunities due to socioeconomic issues (n=10).Other reasons mentioned for joining a gang included: protection(n=5), status/reputation (n=4), peer pressure (n=2), self-worth(n=2), access to drugs (n=1), traumatic life experiences (includingvictimization) (n=1), thrill seeking (n=1), and because friends and/

or family were gang members (n=1). Consistent with studies thatdirectly asked gang members about their reasons for joining,prosecutors offered multifaceted explanations for joining gangs as aresult of several causes (Decker & Curry, 2000; Joe & Chesney-Lind,1995). One prosecutor communicated this succinctly:

What else you got? These kids can't join the Mason's or the YMCAand boy scouts. They have no family situation usually, no nurturing,and no support. Even if they've not been abused, they simply havenothing. I have yet to see one that comes from an intact home. So Iassume without being a terrific sociologist that when you don'thave the support of family, and you don't have an education, youdon't havewealth, and you have no skills, have no job, the next bestthing is amongst those friends with whom you do things.What areyou going to do, go bowling? No, you're probably stealing stuff.Makes some logical sense to me. (Interview 2)

Altogether, prosecutors identified a variety of reasons for joining agang andmany indicated that a combination of some factors collectivelyfacilitated gang membership. Noticeably, the most common reasonmentioned for joining a gang was a desire for support, including peer,family, orfinancial support. These reasonsprovidedbyprosecutorswereremarkably consistentwithprior researchfindings (e.g., Decker&Curry,2000; Hill, Lui, & Hawkins, 2001; Howell, 1998; Joe & Chesney-Lind,1995). With the reasons for joining a gang in mind, prosecutorsdescribed their recommendations for reducing gang crime.

Stopping gangs

Prosecutors offered a number of plausible ways to stop or reducegangs from forming. While nearly every respondent recognized thecomplexities associated with finding ways to stop gangs, all werewilling to identify specific recommendations. Similar to responsesfrom some gang members within prior research, several prosecutors(n=5) believed that stopping gangs was impossible (Decker, 1996).One prosecutor regarded gangs as inevitable:

I don't think you could really get rid of gangs. It's just humannature,I think, for some people to just form gangs… [An] increasedpresence of officers in areas where there's gang activity…almostjust seems to formgangs as opposed to getting rid of gangs, becauseif you break up the gang it's not like the gang's going to die. They'regoing to go make other little gangs. (Interview 23)

The most common recommendations for combating gangsincluded providing help to parents and families (n=10), preventionprograms for youth (n=8), early intervention strategies (n=8),education (n=9), and suppression by law enforcement (n=6). Othersuggestions included providing youth with healthy role models(n=4), vocational programs (n=2), drug treatment (n=2), andreligious involvement (n=1). One prosecutor advocated employingmore school resource officers and four prosecutors described the needfor a major societal shift, including providing more opportunities forlower income families and individuals.

Of the prosecutors that identified focusing on families as a way toprevent gangs, they perceived parents of gang members as ill-equipped and in need of major assistance. Some suggestions forimproving family relationships included maintaining intact “tradi-tional” families, encouraging and providing opportunities for oneparent to remain in the home to supervise children (rather thanwork), providing prenatal care and quality day care to parents, andinstilling children with positive values, morals, and a sense ofresponsibility. Along these lines, one prosecutor remarked:

I think that parents really need to take responsibility for theirchildren instead of expecting everyone else to raise their children

600 K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

for them, actually raise their children in a manner that showstheir child that they love them and care about them, beinginvolved in their life, expecting the child to behave and follow therules and establishing consequences if the child doesn't. And if wedon't do that from the time that kids are very, very young, we'regoing to lose them. (Interview 11)

Respondents admitted that while targeting families may be themost important approach to stop gangs, changing poor parentingtechniques presents tremendous challenges. One prosecutor madethis clear:

You would have to start back at the beginning and look at theprograms and strengthen the family. Programs that strengthenthe family and again, it gets down to individual people who arehaving children who are no more concerned about a committedrelationship or being a father or a mother to that child. And howyou get down to that very, very foundational level of humanresponsibility for your children, I don't know. (Interview 27)

Several prosecutors (n=6) who recommended prevention pro-grams also mentioned specific programs that could be eitherimplemented ormodified to target youth before they become exposedto gangs. For example, Head Start, Success By Six, the Boys and GirlsClub of America, and local programs called Reichert House and PaceSchool for Girls were all identified as positive programs that mayreduce youth gang involvement. Furthermore, engaging youth insporting programs was also recommended as a healthy way toencourage positive values. Although specific preventive programswere preferred by some prosecutors (n=6), one prosecutor recog-nized the difficulty in funding these programs:

One of the problems with funding prevention is that you can't –there are no results…There's no way to say that $10,000 saves thiscommunity $250,000 or $2 million. So, I would encourage them[policymakers] that even though prevention is expensive andeven though there's no way to show your constituents that youdid anything with their money that it's worth spending themoney on prevention to hopefully put us [prosecutors] all out ofbusiness. (Interview 4)

Education was listed by several prosecutors (n=9) as an effectiveway to stop gangs, althoughmost respondents did not identify exactlywhat type of education would be necessary. One prosecutorspecifically noted that education would not work to eliminate gangsand, instead, considered the gang problem a more complex societalissue (e.g., this was partially supported by the evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. program by Esbensen, Osgood, et al., 2001). Of the respondentsthat discussed the benefits of education, one advocated:

Public service announcements about venereal diseases, AIDS,contraception, responsibility, drugs. Show them the films that I'veseen about methamphetamine abuse before they get hooked on it.Show it to eight year olds. This idea that we can't tell eight yearolds about nasty stuff and sex and things is the biggest disservicewe do because it's only through knowledge and education thatanybody will ever improve. (Interview 2)

Another prosecutor discussed the importance of teaching younggang members about alternatives to gang membership:

I would assume just education to let kids know that it's notnecessary. It's not necessary that you join this group of people thatdoesn't have any respect of the law…We need people to go in andeducate the kids that it's not necessary. You know the peoplethey're going to respect and the people that they're going to listen

to. If it becomes uncool to be in a gang, then kids won't be in agang. As long as it's cool to be in a gang, that's what kids are goingto do…So until someone convinces them that it's not cool to be ina gang or it's not cool to do what gangs do, they're going tocontinue to do it. (Interview 17)

While law enforcement was mentioned by several prosecutors(n=6) as a means of combating gangs, half seemed hesitant torecommend this as a major solution. Three prosecutors advocatedfunding police to continue to control gangs, whereas three otherprosecutors speculated that police may help, but will not solve theproblem alone. Another prosecutor specifically supported the use ofcommunity policing as a short-term solution. One prosecutorindicated that law enforcement and harsh sanctions were not viableoptions for reducing gangs:

Fear of law enforcement does not cause them [gangs] to fizzle out.So if we're thinking more guns, more [prison] bars, more walls,more cops, more state attorneys, that's the answer; it's probablynot. It's a great band aid, on the back end of it. It's a fine band aid.But it's certainly not going to shut off the spigot to the proverbialsystem…You've got to get into the lower income [neighbor-hoods], the housing projects, whatever it is and work to get thosekids to not want to be gang members because they can havesuccess somewhere else. (Interview 14)

In sum, prosecutors identified a variety of practical policies andprograms that might successfully reduce local gangs. Commonrecommendations for stopping gangs included parenting assistance,prevention and early intervention programs for youth, education, andlaw enforcement/sanctions. Several programs already in placethroughout the country, such as G.R.E.A.T., integrate a combinationof these concepts (Howell, 2000; Klein & Maxson, 2006).

Discussion and conclusion

The purpose of this exploratory study was to understandprosecutors' perceptions of gangs. Open-ended interviews revealedseveral related themes including: (1) the definition and prevalence ofgangs in Gainesville, Florida; (2) the personal and social character-istics of gangmembers; (3) the reasons people join gangs; and (4) thebest approaches to stop or eliminate gangs. The following details areview and discussion of the findings and provides suggestions forfuture research in light of some of the current study's limitations.

Many prosecutors were either unsure of the prevalence ofGainesville gangs or believed these gangs to be relatively rare, whilesome prosecutors disclosed that they dealt with gangs daily. Certainly,the case assignments of the prosecutors may have affected the extentto which they interacted with or prosecuted gang members.Nonetheless, there was a consensus among prosecutors that Gaines-ville is home to “hybrid” gangs, which they considered largelyunorganized neighborhood-based groups with little structure whoidentify as gangs. Notably, this is similar to prior research thatcharacterizes hybrid gangs as new gangs (established since the 1980sor 1990s) that typically do not embody the same characteristics ofwell-established gangs, such as structure and organization (Starbucket al., 2001). Nearly all prosecutors contrasted local gangs withnational gangs, which they perceived as being organized with a clearhierarchical structure. Interestingly, interviews conducted withmembers of national gangs within a large metropolitan “emerging”gang city (St. Louis) revealed that gangs (including Bloods and Crips)also were loosely associated, neighborhood-based, and generallylacked “leaders, roles, or rules” (Decker, 1996, p. 250). As discussedearlier, prosecutors in Las Vegas also described gangs as “simply loose,shifting associations without stable leadership, role expectations, orcollective goals” (McCorkle &Miethe, 1998, p. 60). Consistent with the

601K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

growing research on “emerging” gang cities, respondents expresseddoubt about the level of organization and structure within local gangs(Decker & Curry, 2000; Esbensen, Huizinga, & Weiher, 1993; Huff,2002; Klein, 1995). Noticeably, prosecutors from the current studyand gang members from large metropolitan cities described gangsalmost identically to each other. Yet, Gainesville prosecutors per-ceived local gangs as unrepresentative of big city gangs. Undoubtedly,investigating this disconnect would be worthwhile for futureresearch.

When identifying the personal characteristics of gang members,prosecutors mainly branded local gang members as young Blackmales who lived in the disadvantaged neighborhoods primarily on theeast side of the city. In terms of gang activities, a handful ofprosecutors recognized that gang members typically “hang out,”whereas all respondents believed gang members committed delin-quent and criminal activities. This finding is supported by priorresearch that indicates gang members primarily report socializingwith one another in addition to fighting and committing crime(Decker, 1996; Decker & VanWinkle, 1996; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995;Klein, 1995; Thornberry et al., 1993).

Prosecutors believed people joined gangs for a variety of reasons,although the most common responses included a desire to belong to agroup or to have friends, a lack of family support, and a lack of financialopportunities due to socioeconomic issues. This finding appears to beonly partially supported when compared to prior research. Forexample, interviews with gang members revealed that the mostcommon reasons for joining gangs were to meet or impress girls,importance among friends, importance and prevalence within theneighborhood, familymembers belong to gangs, and boredom(Decker& Curry, 2000; Decker & VanWinkle, 1996; Joe & Chesney-Lind, 1995).Prosecutors in the current study and gang members in prior researchreported that friends substantially influenced decisions to join a gang.While prosecutors believed family and parenting problems as well asfinancial opportunities influenced gang membership, these reasonswere not mentioned by gang members in St. Louis (another“emerging” gang city). It is possible that discussing family or economicproblems is painful and socially undesirable among gang members.Prosecutors' suggestions regarding ways to stop gangs includedproviding help to parents and families, prevention and interventionyouth programs, education, and law enforcement. Prosecutors alsorecommended policy-oriented solutions to stopping gangs, whereasprior research indicated gang members, maybe not surprisingly,recommended using violence to stop gangs (Decker, 1996).

While the current study is among the first to gain an understandingof prosecutorial perspectives of gangs, some limitations hamper theability to generalize the findings to other medium-sized emerging gangcities within the state or country. Due to the modest size of the city ofinterest, the sample of prosecutors (n=30) in this exploratory study isrelatively small, although it constituted the majority of prosecutors inthe city (86 percent response rate). It is anticipated that future studiesfocusing on othermedium-sized citieswill encounter similar limitationson sample size, simply due to the smaller population of countyprosecutors. Furthermore, the current study examined only theperceptions of prosecutors in a single location. Future research,therefore, might benefit from collecting data from prosecutors andother criminal justice personnel (i.e., defense attorneys, law enforce-ment officers) in othermedium-sized cities to facilitate a comparison offindings with the current study, whichmay shed light on issues such asgeneralizability. Itmay also beparticularly important for future researchto assess the source of the perceptions of gangs among prosecutors orother criminal justice personnel (Decker & Kempf-Leonard, 1991). Forexample, prosecutors' perceptions may have been influenced by thetypes of cases they personally prosecuted, the media, law enforcement,etc. Although the current study did not specifically inquire about thesources of prosecutors' perceptions, which is a limitation of the data,prosecutors were asked to respond to the questions based on their

experienceswith the system. Additionally, in light of the recent surge inpolitical concern about gangswithin the state of Florida and throughoutthe country,5 research focusing on large metropolitan cities may alsocontribute to an understanding of the national gang problem.

Despite the limitations, this study contributes to the extant literatureon gangs by providing an understanding of prosecutors' perspectives ofgangs in a medium-sized “emerging” gang city. In many ways, theprosecutors' perceptions of gangs reflect what has been learned fromresearch that directly examines gang members. While many of theprosecutors initially thought of big-city Bloods and Crips when askedabout gangs, their responses indicated that they clearly differentiatedbetween the “stereotypical” gang characteristics and the type of gangspresent in Gainesville, Florida. Contrary to the characteristics ofstereotypical big city gangs (highly organized, clear hierarchicalpower structure), the prosecutors described Gainesville gangs asrelatively unorganized, loosely associated, and neighborhood-based(see Decker, 1996; Howell, 2000; Klein, 1995; Klein & Maxson, 2006).Furthermore, many of the prosecutors acknowledged that gangmembers primarily “hang out” and engage in non-criminal behaviors,which is contrary to stereotypical perceptions about gangs primarilyengaging in violence, drug sales, and homicide. While prosecutorslargely believed that gang members were minority males, recentresearch focusing on gang members also indicated that gangs are stillprimarilymale andminority (Klein &Maxson, 2006). Perhaps one of themost important findings from the current study is that the prosecutorsgenerally confirm what prior research examining gangs has found.

Understanding the ways in which prosecutors' perceptions ofgangs overlaps with the research that examines gangmembers is vitalfor understanding prosecutors' responses and reactions to gangmembers, including their discretion of legal responses to gangs. Forexample, prosecutors have the ability to decide whether to filecharges against gang members, whether juvenile gang members areprosecuted as adults, and (in many states) whether to pursue a grandjury indictment or preliminary examination (Holder, Robinson, &Slowikowski, 2009). As such, prosecutors have a tremendous amountof control over important aspects of the prosecution, includingwhether hearsay is permitted (e.g., preliminary examination) orwhether witnesses identities are protected (e.g., grand jury). In termsof jury selection, prosecutors may have the ability to ask potentialjurors about their knowledge, attitudes, and personal experiencesabout gangs, which allows the prosecutor some control over thepunitiveness of the selected jury members (Holder et al., 2009). Inaddition to determining the nature and severity of the charges,prosecutors may also charge gang members with a variety ofadditional crimes, such as aiding and abetting the commission of acrime (e.g., encourages the crime, has knowledge of the crime, orfacilitates the crime) and conspiracy liability (e.g., two or more peopleagree to commit a crime). Finally, prosecutors have discretion overthe sentencing consequences that they recommend for gang mem-bers, which may largely depend on the type of charges filed, but alsoin terms of when the sentence is imposed (e.g., suspend theimposition of the sentence, suspend the execution of the sentence,or immediately impose and execute the sentence) (Holder et al.,2009). In light of the considerable amount of discretion prosecutorshave over the prosecution of gang members, it is vital to understandprosecutors' perceptions of gang members. Certainly, if prosecutorsheld misperceptions about gang members, the practical implicationsfor the criminal justice system could be detrimental. Overall, thisresearch provides an important step toward expanding and increasingthe qualitative understanding of prosecutors' perceptions of gangsgenerally and in emerging areas specifically.

Notes

1. While Esbensen et al. (2001) indicate Las Cruces may be considered a chroniccity, one reviewer noted the importance of including it as a potential emerging city.

602 K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603

Author's personal copy

2. One additional interview was scheduled, but was terminated after only a fewinterview questions due to the respondent's unwillingness to answer questionsregarding crime in general or gangs specifically.

3. The full interview schedule is available from the authors.4. Drug rip-offs were described as negotiating a drug deal with someone, taking

their money, and refusing to exchange the drugs while threatening the “buyer” toleave without the drugs or the money.

5. For example, a federal bill, The Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, 2007, wasrecently passed by the Senate (but not from the House) and proposed allocating over$1 billion for suppression, intervention, and prevention programs aimed at reducingthe threat of gangs.

References

Ball, R. A., & Curry, G. D. (1995). The logic of definition in criminology: Purposes andmethods for defining “gangs.” Criminology, 33, 225−245.

Chin, K., Fagan, J., & Kelly, R. J. (1992). Patterns of Chinese gang extortion. JusticeQuarterly, 9, 625−646.

City of Gainesville. (2007). Gainesville facts. Retrieved from http://www.cityofgainesville.org/about/

Cureton, S. R. (2002). Introducing Hoover: I'll ride for you, gangsta. In C. R. Huff (Ed.),Gangs in America III (pp. 83−100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Decker, S. H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. JusticeQuarterly, 13, 243−264.

Decker, S. H., Bynum, T., & Weisel, D. (1998). A tale of two cities: Gangs as organizedcrime groups. Justice Quarterly, 15, 395−425.

Decker, S. H., & Curry, G. D. (2000). Addressing key features of gang membership:Measuring the involvement of young members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28,473−482.

Decker, S. H., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (1991). Constructing gangs: The social definition ofyouth activities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 5, 271−291.

Decker, S. H., & VanWinkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Esbensen, F. A., Huizinga, D., & Weiher, A. W. (1993). Gang and non-gang youth:Differences in explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9,94−116.

Esbensen, F. A., Osgood, D. W., Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., & Freng, A. (2001). How great isG.R.E.A.T.? Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology andPublic Policy, 1, 87−118.

Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree, L. T. (1998). Race and gender differences between gang andnongang youths: Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly, 15, 505−526.

Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitionalissues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency, 47,105−130.

Feinstein, D. (2007, June 14). Senate judiciary committee overwhelmingly approvesFeinstein-Hatch comprehensive gang legislation (Press Release). Retrieved fromhttp://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=2b226f19-bf16-05cb-3cc6-cfad6256bfca&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Fleisher, M. (1998). Dead end kids: Gang girls and the boys they know. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

Gover, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Tewksbury, R. (2009). Adolescent male and female gangmembers' experiences with violent victimization, dating violence, and sexualassault. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 103−115.

Gramckow, H. P., & Tompkins, E. (1999). Enabling prosecutors to address drug, gang, andyouth violence. Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Hagedorn, J. M. (1988). People and folks: Gangs, crime, and the underclass in a rustbeltcity. Chicago, IL: Lakeview Press.

Hill, K. G., Lui, C., & Hawkins, J. D. (2001). Early precursors of gang membership: A study ofSeattle youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Holder, E. H., Robinson, L., & Slowikowski, J. (2009). Gang prosecution manual.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Howell, J. C. (1998). Youth gangs: An overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J. C. (2000). Youth gang programs and strategies: OJJDP summary. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Howell, J. C., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). Youth gangs in schools. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Huff, C. R. (2002). Gangs in America II. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Jackson, A. (2004). Prosecuting gang cases: What local prosecutors need to know.

Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors' Research Institute.

Joe, K. A., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). Just every mother's angel: An analysis of genderand ethnic variations in youth gang membership. Gender and Society, 9, 408−431.

Johnson, C. M., Webster, B. A., Connors, E. F., & Saenz, D. J. (1995). Gang enforcementproblems and strategies: National survey findings. Journal of Gang Research, 3,1−18.

Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2006). Policing gangs in America. Cambridge University Press.Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang. New York: Oxford University Press.Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York: Oxford

University Press.Knox, G. W., Tromanhauser, E. D., Jackson, P. I., Niklas, D., Houston, J. G., Koch, P., et al.

(1993). Preliminary findings from the 1992 Law Enforcement Mail Questionnaireproject. The Gang Journal, 1, 11−27.

Lane, J. (2002). Fear of gang crime: A qualitative examination of the four perspectives.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 437−471.

Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., van Kammen, W., & Farrington, D. P. (1991).Initiation, escalation, and desistance in juvenile offending and their correlates.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 36−82.

McCollum, B. (2008). Florida gang reduction strategy 2008-2012. Tallahassee, FL: Officeof the Attorney General.

McCorkle, R. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1998). The political and organizational response togangs: An examination of a 'moral panic' in Nevada. Justice Quarterly, 15, 41−64.

Miller, J. (1998). Gender and victimization risk among young women in gangs. Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 429−453.

Miller, J. (2002). The girls in the gang: What we've learned from two decades ofresearch. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America III (pp. 175−197). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Miller, J., & Decker, S. (2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, streetoffending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115−140.

Miller, W. B. (1974). American youth gangs: Past and present. In A. Blumberg (Ed.),Current perspectives on criminal behavior (pp. 410−420). New York, NY: Knopf.

National Youth Gang Center. (2009). National Youth Gang Survey analysis. Retrievedfrom http://www.iir.com/nygc/nygsa/

Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2004). Gang membership and violentvictimization. Justice Quarterly, 21, 793−815.

Rosenfeld, R., Bray, T. M., & Egley, A. (1999). Facilitating violence: A comparison ofgang-motivated, gang-affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology, 15, 495−516.

Short, J. F., Jr. (1996). Gangs and adolescent violence. Boulder: University of Colorado,Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Spergel, I. A. (1990). Youth gangs: Continuity and change. Crime and Justice, 12,171−275.

Spergel, I. A., & Curry, G. D. (1993). The National Youth Gang Survey: A research anddevelopment process. In A. P. Goldstein & C. R. Huff (Eds.), The gang interventionhandbook. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Starbuck, D., Howell, J. C., & Lindquist, D. J. (2001). Hybrid and other modern gangs.Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

St. Cyr, J. L., & Decker, S. H. (2003). Girls, guys, and gangs: Convergence or divergence inthe gendered construction of gangs and groups. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31,423−433.

Swetnam, J., & Pope, J. (2001). Gangs and gang activity in a non-metropolitancommunity: The perceptions of students, teachers, and police officers. SocialBehavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29, 197−207.

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Chard-Wierschem, D. (1993). The role ofjuvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 30, 55−87.

Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Tsunokai, G. T., & Kposowa, A. J. (2002). Asian gangs in the United States: The current

state of the research literature. Crime, Law and Social Change, 37, 37−50.University of Florida. (2008). Enrollment. Retrieved from http://www.ir.ufl.edu/

factbook/enroll.htmVigil, J. D. (2002). A rainbow of gangs: Street cultures in the mega-city. Austin: University

of Texas Press.Waldorf, D. (1993). When the Crips invaded San Francisco: Gang migration. Journal of

Gang Research, 1, 11−16.Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice 1950-

1990. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Winfree, L. T., Mays, G. L., & Vigil-Backstrom, T. (1994). Youth gangs and incarcerated

youths: Exploring the ties between gang membership, delinquency, and sociallearning theory. Justice Quarterly, 11, 229−256.

Zatz, M. S., & Portillos, E. L. (2000). Voices from the barrio: Chicano/a gangs, families,and communities. Criminology, 38, 369−401.

Statute cited

Gang Abatement and Prevention Act (2007).

603K.A. Fox, J. Lane / Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (2010) 595–603