The job of the American Civil Liberties Union is to protect and defend the rights contained in the constitution. This week the ACLU commented on the plan by the City of St. Paul to ban 10 individuals from the West Side for a period of unknown time this spring (the so-called Cinco d Mayo banning). We felt that the ban is overbroad, vague, and violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

However, our positions are not always popular. Here is one response we received:

"I apologize if this sounds disjointed, but I don't even know where to start. There is a part of being liberal, and there is a part of being a responsible citizen.

How on earth could you be fighting for the rights of gang members?

Do you have any-I mean-ANY understanding, of what the police know about these non-citizens? They have no rights to go around and enforce their own justice. And if you think they do - then lets set them up in homes and apartments around YOUR home. And once they entice your children into joining we will see how you feel about their "rights". When is the ACLU going to get it?

When the ACLU stoops to the level of supporting gangs, you make it really hard for liberal Americans to support the ACLU. How on earth can you be so stupid to defend this. "

It is upsetting to think that the rights that all good people have are also the rights that all bad people must be allowed to have as well. Gangs are bad and nobody wants to live with gang violence and crime.

We believe that, like all crime and terrorism, we cannot abandon the notions of fairness and justice that defines us as Americans in order to achieve our goals in the way that we think is the most expedient. This is a band-aid solution and we think that the City should focus on addressing the root societal problems that lead young men to join gangs in the first place.

We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is the foundation of our criminal justice system. When we allow the government to secretly create a scoring system in order to send individuals to jail the rights of all of us are at risk.

Many things about this situation are troubling. In no particular order they are:

  1. The city collected secret information on this group of people, in many cases from rival gangs. They have refused to make any of that information public. My concern is that rival gangs could be using the government to eliminate their rivals.
  2. The city proposes to have a civil hearing where they do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals are members of a gang, or that this gang exists. The government defines a gang, and whether an individual is a member of the gang. The government also decides whether or not crimes committed by people the government believes are gang members can also be charged to everyone they've decided is a gang member.
  3. Because it is a civil trial there is no constitutional requirement that these people be represented by counsel. If they are poor or middle class they almost certainly won't be represented. The consequence of violating this banning is a misdemeanor (90 days in jail).

This is the same kind of thinking that gave us Guantanamo - we can't convict them of a crime so we create a backdoor way to put them in jail because we are "sure" they are guilty.

This is a difficult issue and for that reason, we should be reluctant to reach for quick answers. Studies in other states (particularly Pennsylvania) show that using evidence-based strategies to address youth crime and violence actually works, couldn't we give that a try.

If these individuals were violent criminals, let us try them in criminal court, and if they are found guilty sentence them to prison for the damage they have done to society. Let us not take the easy way out of this difficult situation.

Read the Star Tribune article for more details about the banning