Stop and Search

I would guess - and do please tell me if I am wrong - that you are not a young man, black, or a Muslim. I would also imagine that if you have only ever encountered polite and respectful policemen you live somewhere in the Home Counties and drive a Range Rover. If you believe that stop and search short of a checkpoint on every street corner will halt, or even reduce violent crime you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Listen, if crime falls we are told the police are responsible, so more police will mean even less crime; if crime rises we are told we need more police and more policing. You would have us walk further into a police state. Perhaps you believe that if you have nothing to hide there is no reason to fear compulsory national id cards. I am amazed at how little people have learned from history.

Stop and search? Stop and waste people's time more like! Some policemen took me into a jeweller's shop once. The girls behind a counter there shook their heads and said: "No, not him" And then one of the policemen said to me: "OK. You can go." --You try doing that to someone! (& see what happens.) haha -- Another policeman (young and green,) argued with me for about half an hour about searching my bag. (Eventually, at the suggestion of a member of the ever-growing crowd of onlookers, I let him search it. He said: "Someone fitting your description...." Later I tried to attract the attention of an older patrolman in the town centre. He ignored me. Finally I apprached him and said: "Why aren't you stopping me?" He said: "Why should I be?" "Someone fitting my description has robbed a house," I told him. "The robber was black," the policeman said. "But you're in your twenties and he's described as in his mid-thirties." For fitting your description read - a black person! - lol Anybody else doing their job with such a huge degree of incompetence would be fired! My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

"It is certainly right that young men be offended or inconvenienced .Why should their stroppiness be worth more than someones life?" It shouldn't but that's not the question. The question - raised by a leading black police officer - is about whether stop and search is good way of cutting the number of young people committing violent crime. I can see how it might a good way of stopping violent crime in clubs or music venues. But as a random measure on the street, I'd take some convincing that it's efficient or practical.

The mailed fist - even if it wears a silken glove - cannot solve these problems. A violent society cannot be policed into passivity. We need to ask ourselves why youngsters carry weapons, why violent crime is prevalent in certain areas and whether targeting people for the clothes they wear and the kind of language they use can ever be productive. We really have exhausted our imagination and capitulated to the basest instincts of the authoritarian right when all there is to say is "let's increase stop and search". The Melanie Philips tendency would have us believe that social problems have no origins other than the existence of evil in the world; it is oh so simple to advocate draconian measures if the alternative consists of addressing inequality, exploitation, disempowerment, racism and all of the other hand maidens of modern capitalism.

"So no one does anything ?" No, the questions not whether people do anything, it's whether the police do more stop and search. "The black policeman saying this is reflecting the views of black parents whose children are at risk of violence and of stop and search." That doesn't make it a practically useful measure. "The important thing surely is having lives saved.It could deter boys who might carry but who arent really hardened to it all." It might do but probably wouldn't. The main problem is that even if - in some world of fantasy of magical law & order - knives were entirely eliminated as weapons of violence, there are plenty of other perfectly legal things that people can carry to do people a lot of damage. Taking weapons off people - even if it could be done effectively, which I don't think it can through stop and search - is an extremely limited part of any attempt to tackle violent crime. Weapons are a symptom of big problems as well as a cause of them. Kings Cross is not more dangerous than Kingston-upon-Thames primarily because there are proportionately more people carrying knives in Kings Cross.

Kropotkin, the whole mailed fist analogy is a little emotive isn't it? Let the matter stand on its own two feet I say. Incidentally, I agree with you. To bring in draconian measures (oh dear, hypocrite alert!) is just to make the people happy that SOMETHING's being done. As Bwmf said, doesn't mean it's practical... or efficient. But then I don't think this better education, more comunication stuff is the answer either. I think that while it's well and good to claim poverty in the inner cities, etc, it's the wealth of the country that breeds disregard and crime and violence. When you're handed everything on a plate, you take what you want right? I think falling into a little disrepair is doing us all good, you know, shaking us up and making us have a good think about policing, rights to privacy. So are we going to decide that we like freedom, or is that just too scary? Yeah, rant done.

I agree with Bukh that it is a very limited way of dealing with violent crime but on the other hand I do think police should have full powers to stop and search anybody even without solid reason. It might not do much good but it certainly wouldn't do any harm. I wouldn't mind being stopped every couple of weeks for a short time to be searched if it meant others were being similarly searched and some found with drugs/ weapons/ stolen goods or whatever. I don't think huge resources should be ploughed into stop and search in troubled spots but if police are on the beat anyway in one of these places and sees some loitering malcontents why not search the little beggars? jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

My guess is that most people contributing to this thread haven't been stopped and searched. And my guess is that most people in this thread haven't been repeatedly targeted by policemen for the purposes of stop and search. Someone in this thread said it doesn't do any harm! Yes. It does. Repeatedly stopping law-abiding, black citizens simply because they're black does plenty of harm! It makes law-abiding, black citizens think that policemen are lazy, incompetent, racist and stupid. When you want law-abiding, black citizens to support the police service, that's not good. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

I'm with patmac on this one. Stop and search seems to be alright as long as it's other people according to some of you. Oh yes I accept that PoetJude 'wouldn't mind being stopped every couple of weeks for a short time to be searched if it meant others were being similarly searched and some found with drugs/ weapons/ stolen goods or whatever.' But she wouldn't be would she? Unless of course she is a he/black/moslem... or maybe even a Brazilian who lives next door to one. Oh no, they get shot don't they? I don't mind that people are willing to give up their civil liberties so much... it's just that I get really angry that they're so willing to give up mine! (Calm down, Ewan) http://www.abctales.com/story/ewan/deja-vu

I am of African descent and live on London's most notorious housing estate so the chances of me getting stopped I guess could be quite high although higher when walking to work in Hampstead's most affluent areas dressed like a scruff as is my want. I have been stopped but whenever they ask me what I'm doing and I answer, they quickly let me on my way and I think this is great cos it means they are protecting the residents' (and our office's) property, it's not racist! If statistically a particular demographic of people are committing a large proportion of a particular type of crime (even if it is because that particular group are more likely to suffer social ills) then tackling that crime may look like predjudice against that group but to me is absolutely logical. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

But do you accept that your own reaction - though commendable - is not the norm? If it's perceived as racist it will alienate and provoke, possibly to the very kind of behaviour Stop and Search is attempting to prevent. I don't have the answers, I just ask: Quis custodiet custodiens? (bet my latin failed there) Who guards the guardians?

In an ideal world, the police would be lovely, no one would be offended and increased Stop & Search would indeed do more good than harm. Unfortunately, reality has a nasty habit of confounding our hopes and expectations, and throwing great big unforeseen spanners into our grand theoretical plans. I can see how, as per Patmac’s and Ewan’s comments, S&S can actually antagonise its recipients, making them view the police as being “lazy, incompetent, racist and stupid,” and thus perhaps even lead to an increase in (violent) crime. Whatever the theories - however white, middle-class, middle-aged, law-abiding citizenry think S&S should work – if the reality is likely to be something very different, then its implementation should (obviously) be seriously questioned. And furthermore… As per the views of Kropotkin (one of the few true intellectual revolutionaries of the modern world! ;) )… why are we so afraid to question the complex roots of such issues? Because, one might suggest, they are too complex, and to do so would perhaps be unpopular. I have noticed that when, on occasion, K will (very simplistically speaking) suggest that “Capitalism is to blame for X, Y & Z,” said comment will tend to meet with… well, nothing. Except perhaps for the waving of a “Conspiracy alert!” flag or somesuch. But shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that there is something at the very core of our political system that is to, shall we say, “blame” for many/most/all of our societal ills? And couldn’t perhaps one of those “somethings” be our tendency to increase and strengthen our structure (via, for example, the complexifying of our legal system), rather than considering the possibility that perhaps things actually need to be simpler? I’m not necessarily suggesting out-and-out anarchy, but something approaching it may be worth offering a few spare brain cells to the contemplation of… pe ps oid What is "the art of tea"? And what does an "odd courgette" look like?

If it is perceived as being racist, our battle should be to change this perception. I am not alone. A significant proportion of ethnic minorities like myself are fed up of our own people causing trouble in our neighbourhoods, commiting crimes, engaging in antisocial behaviour and then playing the race-card and adopting victim mentality when confronted. As I have said in another recent thread, the black Tory candidate for Hammersmith echoes my feelings exactly... we're always coming up with 'schemes' to tackle social problems in the young and none of them stick. what the problem is is that these young people have never had their behaviour challenged. Stop and search is one way of challenging behaviour. Why should I have to breathe in cannabis fumes in the communal areas of our estate when a simple stop and search sweep of the area would at least curb the blatant smoking of the stuff with perceived impunity. I know that Camilla and I don't agree on some issues but we are the only two people on this site really coming from the political right and I pretty much agree with her on this but don't expect anybody else to. I do acknowledge that there are no easy answers and these 'proposed' measures could be misused. I also do not deny that some police stop and search have in the past been motivated by race alone and there are racist policemen (as there are racist carpenters, plumbers and any other profession) but I am more 'stick' than 'carrot' in these matters. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

On the occasions when I've been stopped and searched it's made me feel really angry. It feels like a violation and also re-inscribes the feeling that the police can do whatever they like because they're the police. It hasn't made me less inclined to obey the law or to call the police if necessary, but that's probably because I don't feel as if my particular group is being unfairly targeted. (dodgy looking late twenties white blokes, if you're wondering.) I don't feel like the police have specifically let me or people like me down. If I did, I'd certainly feel that the police were doing more to get in the way of my life than to enhance or safeguard it. Stop and Search 'Sus' ended in the early eighties because of just that feeling. Then it was brought back. To be fair, most of the times I've been searched the police have been chatty, chummy and aware of the intrusive nature of what they're doing. Maybe that's because I'm a dodgy looking late twenties white bloke. The question for me about the effectiveness of Stop and Search is whether it's Pyrrhic victory. It seems that for every success there's a load of people who feel disgruntled, because they've been stopped and searched because they look suspicious. Cheers, Mark

I see your point Mark but still can't understand why you have to be 'really angry' for more than a very short while. This isn't a criticism , I genuinely can't understand why people don't just 'get over it and get on with it' which has always served me well as a philosophy. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

If we simply say "I think we should have more S&S." And others say "I think we should have less." Then we might as well leave the discussion there. Because it helps absolutely no one. Logically it follows that if S&S alienates particular groups of people it's harmful. And to that extent its use should be calculated in proportion to its deletarious effects. It's a balance. The more skilfully that balance is struck the better. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

Jude, you can get over it because you know, as someone who is university educated and for want of a better word 'posh' (you'd agree that you don't feel yourself to be of the same class as your neighbours), that this isn't really aimed at you. It's water of a ducks back because you know that this isn't the world you'll live in all of your life. You're just passing through the estate until one day you'll up and move to somewhere nicer. In short, you're visiting the world where this sort of stuff happens. I do feel violated, but not to the extent that I want to overturn a police car or set fire to a barricade because I have a job that's all right, I don't feel terribly disenfranchised and my life is going in vaguely the direction I want it to and probably most pertinently, I know that 'dodgy white bloke' is in no way a stereotype that is really going to have an impact on my life. To counter your question Jude, I'd have to ask why there's a mindset that it's anathema for the state to interfere on a structural level, to try and make anything better, but that it is absolutely fine to make a series of sorties into direct action against particular people? Cheers, Mark

I have better prospects than my neighbors but the only life advantage I may have had was growing up in suburbia rather than the inner city. It is true that I am passing through the estate but whilst I am, I am experiencing the same trouble that my neighbours are. When I have moved to my nice cottage in Oxted, Octogenarian Mrs Feely upstairs is still going to have to passively smoke cannabis in the lifts, something I feel stop and search could deal with. I believe that direct action against particular people is fine if the motive is the suspicion that those people are criminals breaking the law. Stop and search may cause problems but better than just letting these people carry on making our lives a misery. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

What if the motive for the stop and search is simply because the person is black? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

Stop and search is already sanctioned. DailyMailists should take note. "The law Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is the most commonly used power and gives the police power to stop and search people and vehicles for stolen goods and offensive weapons on the basis of reasonable suspicion. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994: gives police the right to search people in a specific area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that there is the possibility of serious violence or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon. This law is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000: gives police the power to search people for equipment that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so. It is under this law that police conduct random searches in train and London Underground stations. Police responsibilities If an officer uses Stop and Search powers, they must advise: The law under which they are stopping or searching you Their name and police station What they are looking for The reason for the stop (unless it is a terrorist stop) They should also advise that the subject has the right to be given a record of the search. Advise the subject that they are detained for the duration of the stop Rights of persons being searched It is not necessary to give an officer one's name and address in a Stop and Search. Declining to provide this information is not a valid reason for arrest. If a subject refuses to be stopped, the police can use reasonable force to both stop and detain, so they can conduct a search. If police are searching for drugs, weapons or stolen property, they must have a reason for suspicion (such as a general description, your behaviour, or other intelligence) before they can make a search. If the Stop and Search is terrorism-related, then this is exempted from that rule. The officers making the search must use the Stop and Search powers fairly, responsibly and with respect for people without discrimination. If English is not the first language of a subject, and they do not understand why they have been stopped, reasonable steps must be taken to provide information in the subject's first language. The officer must make sure that the search time is kept to a minimum. The search must take place near where you are stopped, except in instances where moving a subject would protect their privacy. The police do not have the power to stop someone to find grounds for a search."

"What if the motive for the stop and search is simply because the person is black?" I admit this is a difficulty because the young people who blatantly smoke skunk in our area are predominantly but not exclusively black. But correlation doesn't imply causation (because more black people are stopped and searched ergo they are stopped and searched because they are black is a non sequitur.) The problem arises because "motive" is an intangible thing. I think if the 'reasonable suspicion' as cited by Tom is demonstrably present this problem can be minimised if not always overcome. I admit it is open to abuse but it ain't a perfect world. I have been stopped in Hampstead West Heath Road I suspect not cos of my ethnicity but more because of me looking out of place in sports gear and carrying a large holdall! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

The police are paid to investigate crime and criminal behaviour, not innocence and innocent behaviour. Guessing who may have committed a crime based on that person's skin colour is a stupid and lazy method. None of the times when I've been stopped have I committed any crimes, because I've never committed any crimes! (I've told officers this.) So, when I'm next stopped I'll say to an officer, "Why aren't you searching a criminal instead of searching me? I know your job is difficult, Officer. But if you put more effort into looking for the people who actually commit crimes and have criminal records, and less into rifling through my pockets, then your success-rate would go up. You can call me Sherlock Holmes if you like." Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

"Imagine we are in Israel" - No thanks! I do like the idea of police with better manners; in fact I like the idea of policemen who after they stop you for no good reason give you a little sticker for your lapel ('I've met the Met' maybe). What about a nice pair of soft white gloves for the gentle little darlings? They could hand out toffees, or you could get points for your 'Stop and Search Card' every time you get grief from the police. These points could later be redeemed at Boots or Tescos. This whole debate was kicked offer by a copper (his colour matters not a jot) suggesting that more stop and search would be a very good idea. Well he is a copper with the mindset of his profession; if he said stop and search is a bankrupt idea and what we must do is address underlying social causes of violence; if he said policing cannot deal with the causes of crime; if he said that it is not a good idea for the state to blindly pursue a whole section of society because of the behaviour of a minority he would be accused of being "political" and either ridiculed or demonised. I would like to remind everyone that the state used to hang people for theft; people were transported for minor infractions of the law. The draconian justice of the 18th Century did little to make Britain a safer place and filling death row with black men does nothing to make the US safer either. I return to one of my original points: you cannot police a society into passivity, there is just no evidence that it works. Talk of mailed fists may be emotive, but it is a good deal less emotive that seeing the true face of authority close up courtesy of one of the unavoidable side-effects of a remorseless policing and penal system, bullying.

"And Buks if black parents and a top black policeman can't decide what is a useful and practical measure who can?" Evidence of what is practically useful should be used to decide. Genuinely wanting bad things not to happen - and even be directly affected by those bad things - doesn't, in itself, make you any more likely to be right about what will happen as a result of particular course of action to tackle them.

Here's my contribution to the ideas pool. Find the criminals, the ones with the criminal records who commit the crimes and lock them up. I know it's a radical idea, but who knows, one day it might catch on. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

Oh great! Let's have policing policy made-up on the spot by ranting Daily Mail readers! Haha! That'll sort the country out :-) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

"Find the criminals, the ones with the criminal records who commit the crimes and lock them up". Well what about first time offenders? Smoking cannabis is a crime. I actually don't have a big problem with cannabis in itself but with those who haven't the sense to confine their smoking to their own homes. These people are in direct conflict with my ongoing journey of trying to live drink and drug free. Camilla has a point that the libertarian approach leaves anti social and criminal behaviour unchallenged. Say I complain to the police that several black youths are smoking dope in the communal parts of the building. The police turn up but seeing the patrol car arrive the offenders extinguish the joint. There is a chance they police may get the wrong guys because my description fits several groups of youths some of whom may be innocent. So do we search nobody for fear of upsetting them and let myself and Mrs Feeny have the choice of walking up 6 flights of stairs, holding our breath for 2 minutes or coming out of the lifts semi-stonned and stinking? jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I've got a cunning plan. Why not arrest the drug dealers that the police already know about? Why not arrest those of their associates who buy drugs from them and sell them? In fact why not concentrate on the people who break the law in general? I know that it's a tough business to understand, this policing malarky, but if you stick with it for long enough you'll eventually get the hang of it. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

Camilla the damage of centuries can perhaps not be undone in the space of months or even years. Nevertheless, the fact that the true solutions are difficult does not mean that we should fall back on the stand-bys of the authoritarian right; the supposed cure, you know, can often be worse, a great deal worse in the long run than the disease. If you would have me boil it down to some simple formula then here it is: the reconstruction of meaningful communities. That has been said many times by all stripes of politicians but what I mean by it cannot be delivered by politicians, and in fact may only be created in their absence. If we want a free society of citizens then we must dare to allow citizenship to flourish and if we want our young people to become good adults then we must allow them to grow into such fully rounded people. I said that it would not be easy; it would take time and courage, but I fervently believe there are no worthwhile short cuts. The state cannot mend society, in large part it has been responsible for its destruction. Capital (business if you like a less pejorative vocabulary) cannot mend society, it too has played a large role in its dissolution. We must discover and build a new society and for that only the endeavours of people, ordinary people, will serve. A French friend of mine likes to call this kind of thing "fundamental radical cultural and psychological transformation", I just like to call it revolution. Before you dismiss it out of hand, give the state we're in some thought: what has got us to where we are today?

... and let the kids carry on smoking their weed and continue to choke the rest of us?! The police in Southwark are targeting the dealers, in fact three crack houses were closed down on the estate recently. But the soft drugs will always filter down especially now hydroponics are so readily available. These people ARE breaking the law. They are committing a crime that is impacting on the law abiding residents who have to live with them. Are you suggesting that smoking a bit of dope doesn't really count as a crime ... only dealing it? Where then do we draw the line of how petty a petty crime has to be before we enforce it and then why have the law at all. I actually think a zero-tolerence approach and an American style 'three-strikes-you're-out' policy is what's needed in the area. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Literacy and crime are just two of many factors on the index of multiple deprivation. Correlation doesn't indicate causation ... it would be another non sequitur to suggest crackdown on crime would improve other indicators of deprivation. What it would do though is make life a bit more bearable for the community as a whole. As you say, these people have no concern or regard for anyone else's well being, comfort and rights and if a few innocent bystanders are searched ( and we are talking about searching them... a small inconvenience...not some kind of brutality) in the quest to restore order then it is an unfortunate but small price to pay. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Then you pay it, Jude. Let's have the police come round and search you every time they want to waste some time and public resources :-) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php I write book reviews here: http://www.litarena.com/books/

I have already said I don't mind paying it. It took less than 5 minutes for the police to check my pockets and holdall to see it contained some clothes and a bunch of prayer cards for work. And every time I have been stopped I have told the police that I am glad to see them taking security in the area seriously. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

'Imagine we are in Israel'.... and we are Palestinian.

It is not a question of not caring or of permitting anti-social behaviour, for me it is about a sober assessment of the limitations and ramifications of the exercise of authority. No-one in favour of increased stop-and-search has really attempted to address the issues raised by those of us on the other side of the debate. Just because I believe that policing is a blind alley does not mean I am happy to live in a violent society. Because we live in that kind of world, I imagine that the authoritarian current will get its way; Camilla and Poetjude you will probably get the policies you would like. As the rotting corpse of liberal democracy and the civilisation that gave rise to it are washed away on a flood tide of fascism, social dissolution and ecological catastrophe you will be able to reap the harvest of hierarchy. The solutions to social problems do not lie within the system that gave rise to them. A different debate no doubt, but the facile conflation of drug use with violent crime is just plain silly. Firstly prohibition does not work; secondly alcohol is the cause of a great deal more violence than any illegal drugs. If you'd like to know the two main causes of increased use of cocaine (which is what crack is) and heroin in recent years they are: America's war on drugs and the destruction of Afghanistan. Both policies that perhaps folks on the right of the political spectrum would be right behind.

I do feel exactly the same about alcohol although I don't have to ingest second hand booze to the same extent. As part of Southwark council's 'Enough is enough' crackdown on anti social behaviour they introduced control zones where police or community officers can confiscate alcohol from nuisance public drinkers and it has worked to a large extent so to say enforcement doesn't work flies in the face of my own anecdotal evidence. I don't care what people do in their own home but I have the right to a drug-free life and THC enters my bloodstream from second hand cannabis smoke in public areas! jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

"I do not know why there is assumption that allowing any kind of authority to exist would lead to Facism .." Absolutely. This is known as the 'slippery slope' fallacy in logical argument. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Camilla, we may just have found a little common ground after all. I agree that we need to expect something more of our young adults than exams and self-indulgence. Sorry, the Afghanistan link is with heroin; cocaine is largely a problem exacerbated by US policy in South America. I do not believe in the slippery slope fallacy; I merely make the observation that as one set of authoritarian measures fail authoritarians tend to move on to "harder" solutions. Perhaps the most fundamental divide between left and right starts here: do we hold that people generally start flawed and need to be policed/coerced into acceptable behaviour, or that people start with the potential to be marvellous and just need a society which does not screw them up? I would argue that in general the right subscribes to a myth very similar if not identical to the myth of original sin. I do not.

The main cause of the crack and heroin epidemic in America is destruction of the family. This is (again and again) a widely acknowledged, well documented, and unchallenged statistical fact of the matter, not my agenda or opinion. 73% of black American children are born only to a mother. In 1960, it was 18%. Boys go wherever they have a place to move through adolescence with consistency. Poor or rich, this is another widely acknowledged, well documented, and unchallenged statistical fact of the matter. Where there are fathers doing their best to raise a family, there is no crack. Where there are thugs and pimps and suckas, there is crack. Where there is midnight basketball, boys go there and naturally organize themselves into hierarchies. Where there is no midnight basketball, they go to the streets and naturally organize themselves into hierarchies. Many gangs and dope dealers require that new members have fathers already in prison; they know how things work better than those trying to fix things from the outside.