OPINION & EDITORIAL
New law won’t curb violence
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Robert Phansalkar:
- 'Think, Respect' does neither, preempts rational action (November 14, 2007)
- 'Taser this' editorial tame compared to past (October 2, 2007)
- Lawmakers' plan bigger problem than baggy pants (September 18, 2007)
- Right-wing judicial activism fault of liberal tactics (August 31, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Liberties and loitering (February 27, 2002)
- End silence on domestic violence (October 29, 2007)
- Perpetrators must be held accountable (December 14, 2006)
- Sexual violence not just female issue (April 6, 2006)
- Inequality must be disallowed (November 6, 2006)
by Robert Phansalkar
Friday, September 15, 2006
We hear about it almost every day. Some person has committed an unspeakable act of violence toward a new victim. The only thing that seems to vary is where, when and how much lower our society has sunk.
It's hard not to overreact and to remain composed, but now is exactly the time to do that. Madison's old anti-loitering ordinance is back to combat this violence and play off of our fears.
We're facing a threat, not just from crime, but also from our government. To react too strongly to Madison's recent string of violence and give away our rights will make us neither safe nor free.
Not all of Madison's reactions to the violence have been so opposed to common sense. Recent brushes with violence have increased sensitivity and compassion for victims of sexual assault and muggings, a reaction that is quite commendable.
Citizens of Madison should be more sensitive to these violent attacks and those victimized by them. We should take basic precautions such as not walking alone or intoxicated at night. All of these are responses that we, as citizens, should follow, and it is refreshing to see a community stand in unison against these attacks.
But an unfortunate and unreasonable reaction is to legislate, yet again, an anti-loitering ordinance.
After being vetoed in 2002 by Madison's previous mayor, Sue Bauman, the anti-loitering ordinance is back on the docket and support among community leaders is running virtually unchecked.
Despite our recent history with this very anti-loitering ordinance, we are giving into the fear that these attacks frequently produce. Consequently, we're giving the ordinance's proponents the might they need to pass it.
For those unfamiliar with the anti-loitering ordinance, it might be necessary to reflect on what it actually entails. Madison's form of the ordinance calls for criminalizing "loitering with purposes of illegal drug activity."
The only problem with this proposal is that drugs aren't the problem — violent attacks are. By its very definition, the policy targets drugs, not muggings or sexual assault. Is this the best we can come up with to deal with this problem?
How is a loitering ordinance targeted toward drug trafficking going to solve the problem of muggings and sexual assault? It's not.
As if proposing a pointless ordinance wasn't bad enough, Madison already has ordinances that deal specifically with loitering. My column has previously questioned the need for passing legislation already in existence, and once again we're confronting the same kind of issue.
If Madison chooses not to pass a loitering ordinance, we are not giving away our safety or failing to protect our citizens. Rather, we can rely upon years of legal tradition specifically crafted to deal with these types of problems.
Sexual assault, muggings and gang violence have never been legal in Madison, and they never will be. So why bother passing a new law, which doesn't target those three major areas of concern, especially when there are constitutional questions involved?
Countless times, ordinances similar to this in language have been before courts across the country only to be ruled unconstitutional on grounds of discrimination and over-generality. Madison's experience unveiled similar results, despite a lack of litigation.
Mayor Bauman shot down the ordinance, in part, because of concerns over the targeting of African Americans. The last thing anyone needs is racial profiling, and creating another anti-loitering ordinance will only exacerbate this problem in our own backyard.
The solution isn't to give in to our temptation to legislate whenever we don't understand a problem.
If anything, this creates future problems for those enforcing the laws, namely the police. If the police are to better protect and serve, let's not dilute that message and make a complicated problem completely incomprehensible.
Madison police officers need to continue what they've been doing for years: enforcing the laws already on the books.
These crimes are not new to police officers; the only difference is the extent of these attacks.
Police should continue plans to increase patrols, eliminate hiding places and install brighter lights on some of Madison's dark and consequently unsafe streets.
We must commend their efforts and continue to be ever more vigilant for our own safety on a daily basis. But the last thing that we need is to be duped into being afraid while diverting our attention from issues that threaten our civil liberties.
Tell the Common Sense Coalition and your city leaders that this ordinance simply doesn't make sense. We need laws that make Madison a safe and free place, not just from crime, but also from the government.
Robert Phansalkar (phansalkar@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in languages and cultures of Asia and political science.
Anonymous (September 15, 2006 @ 5:20am):
Ah, I get it. Since most of the victims have been white, it's really no big deal. And since most of the assailants have been black and blacks would be disproportionately affected by an anti-loitering ordinance, it's racism, so we shouldn't.
You know, the more I hear liberals whine about whatever they can think of to whine about, the more I think about voting straight-ticket Republican just to tick 'em off! At least Republicans are worried about our safety.
Anonymous (September 15, 2006 @ 10:21am):
"sensitivity and compassion for victims," yeah, like that's going to do anything to stop the crime. And anti loiter laws do not "target" african americans. If the majority of the crimes are commited by blacks, then of course it's going to look like they are being "targeted" when the police try to crack down on the crimes. What, are the police going to say "gee, we better not question that suspicious man because he is black, and we don't want to get sued by the NAACP."
The solution to the crime problem is to let us carry personal protection: knives and guns. The criminals are going to do it anyway. We need more dead drug dealers and rapists, and fewer innocent victims. But the liberals have this crazy idea that the life of a crazed hobo is more important than my wallet. Well, that's Madison for you.
Anonymous (September 15, 2006 @ 11:43am):
VOTE LIBERTARIAN! Make "illegal" drugs legal, and tax them reasonably. And then, if any loser commits a crime whether under the influence of drugs, alcohol, cell phones, greed, etc., punish them Singapore style! Government is the problem ... when it comes to individual freedoms.
Anonymous (September 18, 2006 @ 9:50pm):
Actually, some of the crimes throughout the summer and recently weren't allegedly committed by people who are Black. An example: the white man suspected in the Langdon Street attack.
So why enact an ordinance that is not only ineffective at preventing crime but also targets minorities?
