Charlotte, N.C., is considering a somewhat novel and concerning solution to what is being called a spike in crime recently in the form of “public safety zones.” These zones would be designated areas where anyone with a prior arrest would be prohibited from entering — to do so would be an instant misdemeanor. Unsurprisingly, this idea, currently under consideration by the Charlotte City Council and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, is generating a bevy of controversy. What is wrong with having criminal-free zones, anyway?
The general thought behind the “public safety zone” proposal is that areas known for their high levels of crime could become special areas where police are given greater latitude to deal with repeat offenders. Practically speaking, however, a patrol officer isn’t going to be able to tell who is a law abiding citizen and who isn’t just in passing.
This means there is a new incentive for police to confront citizens on flimsy grounds — missing a turning signal, jay-walking, looking “menacing,” just to name a few hypothetical scenarios. In other words, to profile citizens and be justified in doing so. With the epidemic of police abuse incidents across the nation, to potentially enable this kind of behavior further is foolhardy, at best.
Charlotte is no stranger to foolhardy attempts to curb crime, however, as the Charlotte Observer points out. In 2005 the city created “prostitution-free zones” that later expired after three years, having made no real impact on crime. In another crime fighting innovation, two years ago, the city was granted a special injunction that barred members of the Hidden Valley Kings gang from associating with each other. It’s not really clear whether this unusual action had much effect either.
One of the key problems with the “public safety zone” proposal is the wide, clumsy net it casts — an individual with an arrest (not necessarily a conviction) may be subject to a zone ban. It doesn’t become difficult to see how this could be an issue. Moreover, it is a well-established reality that all across the United States and in Charlotte, N.C., people of color are disproportionately entangled in the criminal justice system. It is easily conceivable that predominately minority and low-income neighborhoods would be those most subject to “public safety zone” classifications.
Then, suddenly, an individual — who may or may not have been actually convicted of any crime — is restricted to where they can move and with whom they can associate. This would seem to breach the First Amendment’s guarantee to a right to assemble. In day to day practice, it could very well mean a father or son being unable to visit their family, to find employment or even to find affordable housing. To be fair, access to work or school has been considered and the possibility of granting exceptions to certain individuals is on the table; it’s unclear how this would be done but the red tape and inevitable bureaucratic hurdles would be an all new burden for all involved, if nothing else.
Beyond the various racial and class implications of these “public safety zones,” it targets a vulnerable, collective group of Americans: former convicts. These individuals, all too frequently subject to new and troubling ways to be disenfranchised and excluded from society, are citizens too and entitled to basic civil rights including the ability to assemble.
In many ways, a proposal like these so-called “public safety zones” reveals the nature of criminal justice in the United States. Rather than seeking to reintegrate those that have broken the law and served their time, the general sentiment seems to be one seeking to further isolate these individuals; a perpetual, unforgiving punishment. It is this mentality that leaves the United States topping global rankings for imprisonment rates and state executions.
Recidivism, the tendency for a convict to continue his (or her) criminal acts, is an issue at the core of the criminal justice crisis in the United States — perhaps if individuals were allowed to be accepted as anything other than a “criminal” while being driven away from legitimate society, offenders would not be compelled to continue committing crime.
Leave a Reply