Jewish World Review June 21, 1999 /7 Tamuz, 5759
Taking back our streets
THE CITY OF CHICAGO had a problem familiar to many other cities: gangs. Sporting their colors, tattoos and other
identifiers, they liked to hang out in poor neighborhoods looking for trouble. Responding to the law-abiding citizens of those
neighborhoods, who reported feeling intimidated and unsafe, the Chicago City Council passed an anti-loitering ordinance.
The ordinance made it a crime punishable by a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment for up to six months to "loiter," defined
as "remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose."
The council provided four predicates for the law's application.
First, the police must reasonably believe that one of two or more people congregating in a public place is a criminal
street-gang member. Second, the gang member or members must be loitering. Third, the officer must order them to disperse.
Fourth, they must disobey the order. Then, and only then, can police make an arrest.
If that sounds reasonable to you, it only shows that you are not a modern jurist. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June
10 that the ordinance violates the Constitution.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens tortures common sense to arrive at the conclusion that the ordinance
was too vague to pass constitutional muster. Quoting precedent, the court noted that "It is established that a law fails to meet
the requirements of the Due Process clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the
conduct it prohibits." Yes, so far so good. But Stevens then argues that "It is difficult to imagine how any citizen of the city of
Chicago standing in a public place with a group of people would know if he or she had an 'apparent purpose.'"
Really? Don't most people one passes on the street have an apparent purpose? They are usually hurrying someplace or
other (not standing around), walking their dogs, jogging, pushing baby carriages or going for a stroll. It actually seems quite
easy to pick out folks who are up to no good. It is probably particularly easy for police familiar with the neighborhood to
know who's who and what's what.
The common behaviors of law-abiding citizens in public places stand in stark
contrast to those of street gangs. In its brief to the Supreme Court, the City of Chicago described it this way: "The very
presence of a large collection of obviously brazen, insistent and lawless gang members and hangers-on on the public ways
intimidates residents, who become afraid even to leave their homes and go about their business. That, in turn, imperils ...
You bet it does. As Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has demonstrated so conclusively in New York, cracking down on small
crimes like turnstile jumping or "squeegee men" has a profound effect on a city's morale and on overall crime rates. In the first
place, many of those who are caught doing smaller crimes turn out to be carrying illegal weapons, which can be confiscated.
But it is also the case that cracking down on quality-of-life crimes ("fixing broken windows," in the phrase of George Kelling)
contributes to an overall feeling of order and thus discourages crime.
As Justice Antonin Scalia points out in his dissent (the phrase should be a macro in everyone's computer), the vagueness
doctrine only applies if the conduct that might get swept into the law's purview is constitutionally protected, like speech.
Loitering is not so protected, "and so ... it is up to the citizens of Chicago -- not us -- to decide whether the trade-off is worth
By the logic of the majority, Chicago's ordinance requiring gawkers to move along when ordered to do so by police
might be unconstitutionally vague, too. Who's to say whether an onlooker was really gawking? Perhaps the Supreme Court
will next find a constitutional right to gawk.
The point is this: Whenever the courts restrict the legislatures, they are arrogating to themselves the right to make the
rules in this society and removing that right from us. Residents of Chicago will want to ponder that loss as they sit, barricaded
in their homes, and gaze out at the punks who will once again rule
JWR contributor Mona Charen reads all of her mail. Let her know what you think by clicking here. Please bear in mind, though, that while all letters are read, due to the heavy amount of traffic, not all letters can be answered.
06/16/99:Hide and seek
06/14/99: Impervious to the evidence
06/09/99: Unsung heroes
06/01/99: For $ale
05/26/99: Best friend these girls ever had
05/24/99: Baby Hope continued
05/20/99: Say no to the Gore tax
05/17/99: Baby Hope
05/13/99: Other high crimes
05/10/99:Three cheers for uniforms
05/05/99: Voucher opponents' worst nightmare
05/03/99: Lessons of Columbine High
04/28/99: Kevorkian is stopped
04/26/99: "Senseless tragedy"?
04/22/99: Hey, hey, ... Bubba
04/19/99: Why we are in Kosovo
04/15/99: Hooray for the NYPD
04/09/99: How to do something about taxes
04/06/99:Can the private sector handle foster care?
03/31/99: The Flower Child goes to war
03/29/99: Foreign-policy meltdown
03/25/99: 'Just doin' it'
03/22/99: Return of pay equity?
03/16/99: St. Hillary
03/10/99: Rodney King in perspective
03/08/99: Monica's story: No morals
03/04/99: Not home but library alone:
3/02/99: Tuning our racial sensitivities
2/27/99: Cease-fire in war between sexes?
2/23/99: Where were the religious voices?
2/19/99: Depends what you mean by "acting"
2/17/99: As Minn., goes so goes the nation?
2/09/99: Prepare for post-impeachment spin
2/03/99: Teaching morality
2/01/99: What did he say?
1/26/99: The truth about the Peace Process
1/22/99: The vulgar decade
1/19/99: Was Jefferson libeled by DNA?
1/13/99: The backlash picks up speed
1/11/99: Who invented politics of personal destruction?
1/07/99: Shall we dance?
1/05/99: Try him!
12/30/98: The price of virtue
12/28/98: The gift of giving
12/22/98: Party of shame, party of shamelessness
12/18/98: Wag the country
12/16/98: Is this impeachment constitutional?
12/14/98: Republicans find courage
12/09/98: Nappy Hair and other racial slurs
12/07/98: Stranger in a strange land
12/02/98: Dangerous ground
11/30/98: Involuntary fatherhood?
11/24/98: Lies, damned lies, and sex lies
11/18/98: Another victory for cowardice
11/16/98: Separatism plus welfarism equals a dead end
11/10/98: Did conservatism lose campaign '98?
11/06/98: Democrat venality, Republican timidity
11/04/98: Are girls being shortchanged?
11/02/98: Believe the children?
10/28/98: What 'Measure 58' would do
10/26/98: The officers are bailing out
10/20/98: Using Matthew Shepard's murder
10/19/98: The school voucher that saved a family
10/14/98: Are powerful women different?
10/09/98: Can just sex be impeachable?
10/07/98: Repeal Miranda
10/02/98: Understanding the polls
10/01/98: What school texts teach about marriage
9/28/98: Fear of choice
9/23/98: A fork in the road: Bubba's fate and ours
9/18/98: Christianity and the Holocaust
9/16/98: The national dirty joke
9/11/98: Are we in crisis?
9/09/98: Does Burton's sin let Clinton off the hook?
9/07/98: Liar's Poker
9/01/98: One, two, three
8/28/98: Fat and folly
8/25/98: When homework is a dirty word
8/21/98: The unravelling
8/18/98: The wages of dishonesty
8/17/98: Sex, honor and the presidency
8/12/98: Pro-choice extremist
8/10/98: Switch illuminates biology's role
8/05/98: The presumption of innocence and the American way
8/03/98: An American hero
7/29/98: Lock up those who need psychiatric care
7/24/98: Making the military more like us
7/22/98: The 'Net sex hoax... and us
7/20/98: Disappointed by Cosbys
7/15/98: Feelings, not morality, rule
7/10/98: Guns as the solution?
7/8/98: Teacher preacher
7/6/98: The China behind the headlines
7/1/98: What is the First Amendment for?
6/26/98: The Republican city
6/24/98: Poison pen
6/22/98: Clinton: inventing his own reality?
6/16/98: Senator mom?
6/12/98: Wisconsin: a trail blazer?
6/9/98: These girls say no to sex, yes to excellence
6/5/98: Lewinsky's ex-lawyer would feel right at home as Springer guest
6/2/98: English? Si; Republican? No!
5/29/98: The truth about women and work
5/27/98: Romance in the '90s
5/25/98:Taxing smokers for fun and profit
5/19/98: China's friend in the White House
5/15/98: Look out feminists: here comes the true backlash
5/12/98: The war process?
5/8/98: Where's daddy?
5/5/98: The joys of boys
5/1/98: Republicans move on education reform
4/28/98: Reagan was right
4/24/98: The key to Pol Pot
4/21/98: The patriot's channel
4/19/98: Child-care day can't replace mom
4/15/98: Tax time
4/10/98: Armey states obvious, gets clobbered
4/7/98: A nation complacent?
4/1/98: Bill Clinton's African adventure
3/27/98: Understanding Arkansas
3/24/98: Jerry Springer's America
3/20/98: A small step for persecuted minorities
3/17/98: Skeletons in every closet?
3/13/98: Clinton's idea of a fine judge
3/10/98: Better than nothing?
3/6/98: Of fingernails and freedom
3/3/98: Read JWR! :0)
2/27/98: Dumb and Dumber
2/24/98: Reagan reduced poverty more than Clinton
2/20/98: Rally Round the United Nations?
2/17/98: In Denial
2/13/98: Reconsidering Theism
2/10/98: Waiting for the facts?
2/8/98: Cat got the GOP's tongue?
2/2/98: Does America care about immorality?
1/30/98: How to judge Clinton's denials
1/27/98: What If It's Just the Sex?
1/23/98: Bill Clinton, Acting Guilty
1/20/98: Arafat and the Holocaust Museum
1/16/98: Child Care or Feminist Agenda?
1/13/98: What We Really Think of Abortion
1/9/98: The Dead Era of Budget Deficits Rises Again?
1/6/98: "Understandable" Murder and Child Custody
1/2/98: Majoring in Sex
12/30/97: The Spirit of Kwanzaa
12/26/97: Food fights (Games children play)
12/23/97: Does Clinton's race panel listen to facts?
12/19/97: Welcome to the Judgeocracy, where the law school elite overrules majority rule
12/16/97: Do America's Jews support Netanyahu?
©1999, Creators Syndicate