Abstract
Using in-depth interviews with current and former gang members in Bexar County, Texas, and Orange County, Florida, this research examines the processes and methods of joining and leaving gangs. Although initiation is generally believed to be the line of demarcation for gang members, the gang members interviewed for this study indicated that there are several nonviolent methods of gang entrance. Gang desistance was very common, but successfully leaving the gang often depended upon geographical separation and alternate support systems. Lack of the aforementioned elements led to ambivalent behaviors in which individuals straddled the line between gangs and conventional lifestyles.
Keywords
In the current legal climate of punitive action toward gang members, determination of who is and who is not a gang member is becoming more pertinent. Over the last 10years, estimates of gang membership in the United States have averaged at about 750, 000 (National Gang Center [NGC], 2012). These estimates of gang membership are generated from reports of local law enforcement agencies. At least 29 states have enacted legislation that enhances penalties based on gang involvement, underscoring the importance of accuracy in determining membership. Examining the issue of membership from the perspective of gang members reveals that this determination can be complex. The present study is a qualitative exploration of gang member relationships using in-depth interviews. This study’s original aim was to expand upon gang typologies and Fleisher’s (2006) work of identifying ego networks that cross so-called gang boundaries by examining what ties between members of different gangs mean for gang processes, as well as examine the concept of “hybrid gangs” or gangs with fluid behaviors from the perspective of gang members. In other words, how much do ego networks contribute to gang relations regarding multiple gang associations, switching gangs, initiations, and leaving the gang? The following portion is an examination of gang entrance and desistance using qualitative interviews of current and former gang members in two counties to understand the nature of these social relationships.
Literature Review
Initiation
Previous research on gang entrance and desistance has been rather limited due to the common emphasis on the criminality of gangs rather than gang processes. However, there have been some key research findings as well as significant problems emerging from the few studies that have examined this phenomenon. Research on joining a gang has focused on why individuals choose to join (Jankowski, 1991) rather than how they do it. Despite the lack of investigation into the matter, understanding how individuals join is equally important. One of the issues associated with examining how individuals join gangs is the fluidity of gang membership, which causes problems for categorizing people as gang members. To be included in a category, researchers often use specified characteristics and traditionally people have assumed that initiation was the line of demarcation in being considered a gang member. However, empirical evidence has indicated that beliefs about a requirement of violent or criminal rituals to join gangs (the myth of blood-in, blood-out, which means that gang membership requires violent entrance rituals and violent exit consequences including death) are misconstrued and erroneous. Curry and Decker (2003) explain that there is variation in gang initiation rituals. Gang members in St. Louis reported initiation rituals that included being beat into the gang, committing violent crimes, and being allowed in without violence (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Although beat-in initiations were the most common type reported in Denver and Ogden, there were still individuals who were “grandfathered” into the gang without violent initiation (Duran, 2009,p. 111). What is not clearly stated in literature is the commonality of nonviolent entry into gangs.
Official indoctrination ceremonies do not have to be violent. Brotherton and Barrios (2004) document the stages of initiation into the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation (ALKQN), which includes dedication to the group through demonstration of group knowledge and attendance at group functions. Even when official procedures do not exist, inclusion in a gang can occur simply by hanging around with the group or having friendship or family network ties (Spergel, 1995). Although particular gangs may have established indoctrination rituals (Padilla, 1992; Vigil, 1996), the premise that initiation is the penultimate demarcation line between gang association and gang membership is faulty. Miller (2001) described joining the gang as more of an informal process for females in St. Louis. Fleisher (2002) found no formal process of recruitment or systematic initiation procedures. People were considered gang members simply by virtue of knowing, being related to, or hanging around gang members. Only 9 of the 54 of the gang members studied went through a formal initiation process. Bolden (2012) also found that an initiation ritual was unnecessary and often not used in determining gang membership.
Leaving
Another dynamic of gang processes that is not often studied is leaving the gang. Although there is an erroneous popular belief that it is impossible to leave a gang, most gang members do eventually leave the gang. Leaving the gang occurs for various reasons but one of the primary motives is due to the death or violent victimization of close friends or relatives, or because a major life transition such as marriage occurs (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002). The rhetoric about requirements of death or harming the family of individuals who wish to leave the gang is more myth than reality (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). The ALKQN have a written document called the Golden Gate, which officially demarcates someone leaving the group (Brotherton & Barrios, 2004). Yet myths such as a blood-in, blood-out, or the requirement of killing a family member to leave a gang still abound in the media and police folklore (Curry & Decker, 2003). Despite the popularity of myths and sensationalized claims, the academic research that exists on leaving the gang indicates that not only is it possible to leave, but the process of doing so can be fairly uneventful (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002). Ex-gang members indicated that the process of leaving the gang was fairly calm and nonviolent because the other gang members were friends and family who did not hold the desire to leave against them or that gangs were so loosely organized that members fading out of the network was not of major concern. This smooth transition points to the importance of the relational aspect of gang membership. More specifically, gang membership may be more of an acknowledgment of relationships than a representation of organizational affiliation (Fleisher, 2002, 2006).
Based on these findings, reinterpretation of gangs as social networks rather than organizations may explain what we know about leaving the gang. Contrary to colloquial belief, gang membership is not “for life.” Most gang members mature out or leave the gang without adverse consequences (Bolden, 2012; Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Fleisher, 1998). Thornberry (1998) reports that for most people the duration of gang membership was 1 year or less in Seattle, Denver, and Rochester, NY. Rather than simply leaving a structured organization, people are leaving a social network. Spergel (1995) also argues that youths are not as strongly attached to the gang as believed and most will eventually “mature” out. A major obstacle to the success of those leaving the gang comes from old rivals attempting retribution and relational attachments to other gang members that may draw someone back in. This may require relocation of former gang members for successful transition out of the gang (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Previous research has revealed that there can be variations in gang entrance and that individuals can and do leave gangs. The current study adds to this literature by examining the variations to gang entrance and the dynamics involved in leaving the gang.
Method and Data
In any study of gangs, the first issue to be addressed is the definition of gang. For practical purposes and for the sake of advancing gang research, I use the Eurogang definition of the street gang, which is “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of its group identity” (Klein, 2006, p. 4). This definition has been agreed upon and used by several prominent American and European gang researchers, thus allowing for comparative research. For the purposes of operational definition, self-nomination as a gang member will also be used for validation.
In this study, 48 in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 current gang members, 20 former gang members, and 13 ambivalent respondents who straddled the line between being active and being former. The purpose of the overall study was to investigate gang behaviors through social network dynamics, which included the processes of joining and leaving the gang. Former members were asked questions in regard to the time that they were active, although information about post-gang status became relevant in the case of ambivalent respondents. All respondents were over the age of 18. The interviews were collected through snowball sampling. The choice of in-depth interviewing was made because it goes beyond the worldview of law enforcement to understand the perspective of gang members. Rather than rely solely on the observations of outsiders about gang behaviors and subsequent interpretations about these behaviors, it is imperative to find out directly from the individual their views of their own relational ties. In-depth interviews supply a wealth of knowledge and the adaptability to explore informational avenues that arise. This adaptability leads to a richer understanding of the subject.
The interviews were conducted in Bexar County, Texas, which has San Antonio, a chronic gang city, as the county seat (Klein, 1995) and Orange County, Florida, where Orlando, an emerging gang city, is the county seat. It has been purported that hybrid gangs are found in emerging gang cities rather than chronic gang cities (Starbuck, Howell, & Lindquist, 2001, 2004). While there have been a few studies concerning Mexican-American gang typologies (Valdez, 2003) and gang intervention/prevention (Spergel, 1995) in San Antonio, there is very literature on gang activity in either locale. Overall, 26 interviews took place in Bexar County and 22 interviews were conducted in Orange County. The semistructured interview schedule was constructed based on two primary goals. The first goal was to make the study comparative by the standards of the Eurogang Program. Core questions, which are questions necessary for research comparison and verification of gang membership, were adapted from the Eurogang Youth Survey. The adapted questions establish that the respondent is or was in a group considered a gang, and ask about the gender makeup of the group, average age, age range, racial/ethnic makeup, territorial behaviors, descriptions of territories, length of the groups’ existences, and the description of subgroups should they exist. Gang membership was further operationalized through self-verification, and by extension of the snowball sampling technique, which indicated that other gang members recognized the interviewee’s gang status. Due to IRB restrictions, there were a few Eurogang core questions that the researcher was unable to ask directly, as they had to do with criminal behavior. This was dealt with by asking general questions about the group’s activities. Ultimately, all interviewees reported both mundane and criminal/delinquent behavior.
In accordance with IRB protocol, only one interview with each individual was conducted. The interviews were set up by gatekeepers or interviewees who volunteered, as no identifying information was given to or kept by the researcher. Interviews were solicited through gatekeeper contacts from a previous study (Bolden, 2012), and through announcements in courses at community colleges for assistance. All respondents were given a consent form with waiver of signature explaining the study and contact information for the researcher and supervisor of the study. Interviews took place in venues where the respondents felt more comfortable. It is notable that it was more common for respondents in Orlando to agree to meet in a public place such as a restaurant, whereas respondents in San Antonio most often wished to meet at their own home. Interviews lasted from 45 min to over 2 hr. They were all audiotaped. There was no compensation given to respondents other than an offer from the researcher to pay for the meal if meeting at a restaurant, which most declined.
The second goal of the interview schedule was to examine gang networks and questions concerning the existence, regularity, and consequences of fluid gang behaviors such as switching gangs, belonging to more than one gang, and the process of joining and leaving the gang. Examining the process of joining and leaving serves two functions for this study. First, a claim is made about hybrid gangs having unclear rules and codes of conduct (Starbuck et al., 2004). Since there are no specifications as to what this means, examining rules for joining and leaving, two process that are certainly a part of gang behavior, serves as a proxy for rules and codes of conduct. Second, if behaviors such as switching gangs and having multiple affiliations are in question, it also lends import to understanding the process of joining and leaving the gang. Interviews were analyzed through an open-coding thematic system by hand and then further sorted by patterns of frequency, structures, processes, causes, and consequences (Lofland & Lofland, 1995). Initiation typologies emerged from structural coding and frequencies of initiation categories followed. Thematic coding for causes included reasons for leaving the gang. The following interviews are presented with an emic emphasis. Using emic methodology, or understanding the social world from the respondent’s viewpoint, enables a framing of gang processes from the perspective of those who actually experience the activity. This allows respondents to speak for themselves regarding rationalizations and motivations for gang behavior, rather than outside observers making assumptions about the aforementioned behavior, giving us a clearer understanding of sensationalized ideas like “blood-in, blood-out.”
Results
Respondent Demographics
The interviewees in this study are or were members of Bloods, Crips, Folk Nation, Independent groups, Jamaican Posses, People Nation, and Surenos. While not specifically sought out, an unexpected development in the research was that 22 of the subjects were gang migrants with origins primarily in Chicago, California, and New York. However, most of the interviewees had engaged in gang activity or considered themselves active in Orange County, Florida, or Bexar County, Texas. An additional benefit of this development was the interviewee’s comparative gang knowledge of different locations and the indications that joining and leaving behaviors were very similar. Of the respondents in Orange County, Florida, there were 19 males and 3 females, who ranged in age from 18 to 47, with racial/ethnic backgrounds including White, Black, and Latino (Table 1). For the Bexar County respondents, there were 20 males and 6 females, who ranged in age from 21 to 59, diversified in racial/ethnic backgrounds between White, Black, Latino, and mixed race/ethnicity. All females in this study are Latina save one who is mixed Black and White. The Orlando respondents tended to be considerably younger than those in the San Antonio area. Only Latino respondents were in the 36+ age range. Racial/ethnic distribution between sites was fairly equal except that all of the respondents of mixed race/ethnicity were in San Antonio.
Respondent Demographics.
Initiation
Respondents’ descriptions of entry into the gang were quite varied but generally fell into three categories: fighting initiations, criminal initiations, and nonviolent entry. Each of these categories, discussed in detail below, consisted of several subcategories.
Fighting Initiations
Fighting initiations were the most common and consisted of being jumped in/rolled in, beat backs, walking the line, 1 on 1s, free for alls, and checking. The violent initiations were the typical rituals that the public has become aware of. The process of being jumped in/rolled in, which is when several members simultaneously assault the initiate for an allotted period of time, was by far the most common type. The person under assault had to stand his or her ground and fight back.
I was surrounded by about 5 guys who all started to kick my ass. I got to fight back, some of them were pretty big, and pretty heavy fists too I remember. Luckily for me it happened at school so the teachers came before they knocked my ass out, so that happened you know it was just like that.
It was about 8 guys, they all just ganged up on me and started pounding down and if I made it through I was alright, if I died, I died.
Yeah, I got beat up…well, I wouldn’t say beat up. I got jumped by five people. They show respect, I stood my ground. I wasn’t trying to lay down, trying to take hits or shit like that. I stood up and I was swinging on them. I did get knocked down, but as soon as I got knocked down, I tried my best to get back up while I was getting hit. I started swinging…yeah, I got jumped in.
One variation of this was the beat-back, which Padilla (1992) referred to as the “V-In,” a similar scenario to being jumped in except that the initiate was not allowed to fight back.
Did you go through an initiation?
Yeah, a beat-back. I got beat in by three people. Can’t pay back.
Can’t hit back?
Can’t hit back, just gotta take it.
In walking the line, members of the gang would line up on both sides of the initiate. The inductee would have to travel through the corridor of gang members while they punched and kicked. The goal was to make it to the end of the line.
I was handcuffed and they put me in a line. They put me, they put me like two rows of eight. Eight people had lined up on both sides of me and I had to make it all the way to the end without falling to my knees.
In 1-on-1 initiations, the inductee only had to fight against one other member of the gang. These rituals typically lasted longer than a jump in/roll in or the opposing fighter selected for the induction was one of the largest or toughest members in the gang.
Yeah, so we fought for 5 min and then after that, I had to, he was one of the biggest kids in the set, so I had to fight him and then after being beat down from him, was initiated and you know after that they accepted me.
It was just me and one other girl. Her and her brother are the ones that brought the Vicelords here to San Antonio and they asked me if I wanted to be a part of it, because of course my boyfriend was and I said yes! So she just pretty much knocked me out (laughs) and that was it, we hugged and that was it.
Free-for-alls occurred when several new members were being inducted simultaneously. Instead of the current members of the gang jumping the new members, the initiates would all have to fight each other at the same time.
Yeah, it was me and about five other of my homegirls there and with the set that were the best friends of mine now. We all did get a roll in together; we just kicked each other’s ass. Seemed like a good 10 minutes, but probably lasted may be two or three.
Finally, checking, was a variation of the 1-on-1 fight. All other forms of fighting initiations occur as a one-time ceremony. Checking on the other hand can occur over a long period of time. In this situation, all current gang members can fight the inductee, one-on-one at their leisure. The initiate has to prove that he or she is ready at any time to fight for the gang, so members will unexpectedly “check” the newcomer, until the person’s willingness and heart is proven to all members of the gang.
Did you go through an initiation?
Yeah…hell yeah.
Can you tell me about it?
About 6, 7, 8, 10 times. They my cousins you know what I mean so every time I claim my set they dust me off (fight me), like show us what you talking about, and why not. So I never got a once and for all final one.
I got whipped a lot of times…I got whipped like 3 or 4 (times), but that is just the way it is, you know, you just fight. It’s not only initiation, it’s just there. You know, somebody is coming from your gang and says “you know what, let’s go throw blows”…Ok, you, know the guy’s about 6 foot something tall but you still have to go to work.
Notably, both Esoteric and Aztec were a part of San Antonio neighborhood-based gangs (East Terrace Gangster Crips, and the Alazon-Apache Courts) with long histories of territorial fighting. Both respondents were significantly attached to their groups and, in dialogue, often blurred the line between gang, family, and neighborhood.
Criminal Initiations
These types of initiations are self-explanatory. In these situations, the inductee had to commit a specified crime as instructed by other members of the gang which included but was not limited to stabbings, robbery, and drive-by shootings. Sometimes the initiate would have to commit a series of crimes referred to as “missions” to be accepted into the gang.
I had to do five missions. Each mission was something different. I had to complete each one. Somebody had to be there with me when I was completing them and make sure that I passed them and if I didn’t I would do it over or they would give me another mission to do.
Did you go through an initiation?
Yeah, I had to put in work, like rob.
Nonviolent Entry
The respondents in this study clearly indicated that not every gang member had to go through a violent or criminal initiation. Subcategories for nonviolent entry included being blessed-in/born-in/crowned-in, walked in, or an original. Different names were used to describe the same phenomenon so being blessed-in/born-in/crowned-in referred to the same situations with slight variation. If a well-respected or high-ranking individual in the gang vouched for a person, then said person was given a pass and did not have to go through an initiation. This process of blessing-in was usually only done for relatives of the respected or high-ranking individual, for girlfriends and wives of gang members, or for individuals transferring to other gangs in the same affiliation. Being crowned-in was a synonymous term for the event used by the Latin Kings. Furthermore, it was a common belief that any child born to a gang member was automatically a part of the gang and did not have to go through an initiation. This form of nonviolent entry was prevalent across gang affiliations as is demonstrated by Rok (Black P-Stones) and Silk (Latin Queens) for the People Nation, Joker (Latin Lovers) and Patos for the Folk Nation, Smokey and Babyface for the Bloods, and Chill for the Crips.
Did you go through an initiation?
No, not me, because of the simple fact of who I knew. I was a part of initiation ceremonies; I was definitely a part of that. I actually participated in them, but me personally having to go through one, I didn’t have to.
Do you consider that being blessed in?
Exactly.
That is what they’re called, blessed in. They do that with family members. Just like your cousins or someone like that. Like, my cousin, he was blessed in.
Did you go through an initiation?
When I was up there (Chicago), no, cause the original person who made it is family, so I was really just blessed in. They, you know, as long as they kept telling me, just kept telling me “why don’t you come with him,” “why don’t you come with us,” and then I said “alright, I’m down,” it’s all I needed. Just took me under the wing after that.
My Y.G. (Young Gangster/Second in command) that’s right now used to be my Y.G. from my old set ESP, and he said, “yo, let’s go to this set, since you already showed me that you was a true soldier and a true boony and all that, I’m just gonna bless you in.” Bless me in means that I don’t have to get my beat down again.
Did everybody go through a similar process?
Except for the females, everybody but a female or you know if you’re family of somebody in there, a lot of times you don’t really have to get your ass whipped if that person’s high up, then you’ll get in just like that.
The reason I got in at a young age was because I didn’t have to fight anybody, or I didn’t have to cut anybody because that is basically it. You either get jumped in for 31 seconds by three people, if not you have to cut some random person on the face, if not do anything else. But I was blessed in by my brother because my brother was an OG. So him being that, I didn’t have to do nothing, I was just blessed in.
Did you go through an initiation?
Since I was crowned in, no.
So not everybody goes through an initiation?
No
So crowned in is like…
Like being blessed in. I know all the knowledge like that…I know everything. I was always with them. I’m like the little sister so that’s how they crowned me in. But most people either fight to get in, kill to get in, they’re either in or they’re not, or if your father or your mom if they’re like born as King…then no matter what, that makes you Queen or King, because of your parents.
Very similar to being blessed in is getting to walk-in. Two types of people received walk-ins. These occurred with individuals who had incredible street reputations that required no subsequent testing.
Does everybody go through an initiation?
No, not everybody. It kinda depends on, are you somebody who is really just out there going crazy? Beating people up, robbing, stealing, doing crazy stuff and everybody know it. And if he came in, he wouldn’t have to go through that initiation because everybody knew he was already doing it.
The other type of walk-in gets at the ambiguity in who is considered a gang member. When considering gang associates, the lines of inclusion are often blurred.
…they was affiliated, they even put in work at times, ‘cause if they was with us and we got down, they got down with us.
You mentioned something about people who kind of just hung around. How did you feel about those people who are temporary, or not fully affiliated?
Me, personally, I felt just as close to them as I did the other ones. Because even though they weren’t a beat in member, they were still willing to do whatever we had to do you know what I mean.
Ultimately, some long-time gang associates who had grown up with, fought alongside, or participated in activities with the gang members were given walk-ins. In this type of entry, a declaration is made that this person is a part of the gang, the declaration goes unchallenged, and the individual is accepted as part of the group.
I didn’t get rolled in, but I kind of like, I was there for a lot fights that did happen, so it was like, I guess I am in you know what I mean. Cause when I asked to be in it, then I was down, and we did a lot of bullshit and I was down right then.
There’s some people who didn’t get jumped in because they’ve done things for the gang before that we didn’t really talk about but they did things to where the Diablos (older clique) said they didn’t need to get jumped in. You know, so that is how it went.
I started little, born boxing. When I was coming up, everybody that was in the set, we all went to school together, we all come together, your house, my house, mommy, daddy, brother, sisters, you know almost like the mafia movies you see in New York or whatever, you it is just everybody knows each other. There is no question about, I ain’t even gotta initiate you, I already know what’s up, I fought you a million times in elementary school.
Finally, initiation rituals were not required for many of the original members or creators of a gang.
…when the group founders you know, you comin’ up with some of them, it is not like…you are not going to initiate something, you don’t have to initiate yourself into your own idea.
I am what you call a founder for one of my groups, the Latin Dragons. An OG is the better term they use. I don’t use it. I’m just the founder, the originator, of the founders of my organization. I’m one of the guys who set up the by-laws and everything, the administration, how the government was working. So we were never initiated, the original fifteen guys. After the fifteen, first, maybe first, second generation guys…after the second generation we started putting an initiation on them, giving them a violation to come in and stuff like that, but it’s not necessarily always that, from what I hear. Some people get blessed in. Blessed in is the word they use. Where you know, somebody high in authority will say, there’s this guy, and he doesn’t have to go through any of the things that everybody else has been through. My word is good enough to make sure that this guy is one of us. And they call that a blessing.
While it is quite clear that a variety of initiation rituals of the violent and criminal genre seem to be mainstays of gang processes, it has also become evident through this research that nonviolent/non-criminal entry into a gang is very common as well. This is a phenomenon that has been ignored or has not been seriously addressed in prior research. Although the respondents were well aware of the different methods of joining a gang, there seemed to be a pattern as to the popularity of methods by region. In this study, fighting initiations were more popular with the local San Antonio area gang members and gang migrants from California. Criminal initiations were more popular with the local Orlando area gang members and gang migrants from New York. Interestingly, while described by members from all places, nonviolent entrance into the gang was primarily among gang migrants from Chicago and New York. No patterns of entry emerged regarding race, ethnicity, sex, or age. However, there were variations of entry within gangs, particularly in San Antonio. Table 2 summarizes the method of gang entry for the respondents in this study.
Methods of Gang Entry.
Note. Some respondents belonged to more than one gang and may have had more than one initiation.
Leaving the Gang
There seems to be some confusion about the process of gang members leaving the gang, which makes sense due to the conflicting messages that are broadcast not only by the media, but also by gang rhetoric. Despite the prevalent blood-in, blood-out beliefs, only three former gang members in this study indicated that they suffered violence when leaving the gang.
Methods of Leaving the Gang.
I don’t consider myself in, but yea I’m still in. Cause once you’re in you can’t get out.
further expresses her method of escape and subsequent ambivalence:
So you said at the very beginning that you don’t consider yourself in anymore, in what way do you not consider yourself in?
Well first, I moved out of New York cause there was too much drama, too many things happened. After my best friend got shot in the head, my mom, we all came over here and like I got away from everything and I just, I guess when people ask me, sometimes I admit to it, and sometimes I don’t because it’s nobody’s business, but I just don’t consider myself in it no more cause I already left the pack and I don’t want to return to it.
Escaping the Gang
Flight to a different geographical area was a very common theme of escaping the gang environment.
So you said you were no longer involved. How did you go about leaving that behind?
Nobody knows where I’m at, in that sense; none of them know where I’m at.
I got out of prison and then I came over here, because it is the only way that I could get out. Not get out of the gang, just get away.
So you said you left the group and you left it by coming down here?
Yup, there was really no other option.
So how did that go over with everybody?
I didn’t tell I was moving, I didn’t tell nobody. As soon as I graduated, I was up there for a week; I was packing my stuff on the low. I didn’t even tell anybody I was packing (laughs).
Nine times out of ten you are either dying or leaving the state or the city of where your group is at.
While on the surface it may seem that flight indicates fear and avoidance of gang retaliation for leaving the group, the actual reason may be altogether different. In considering the accounts of both former and current gang members, even the ones who believed that they could not leave, there did not seem to be much fear of retribution.
Do you think they will do anything to you?
No, nothing whatsoever. Once you got enough reputation out there, you just don’t…everybody just wants to stay away.
If they see me, they will, but I mean that’s my fault, that’s my bed. I have to lay in it, but I mean all I can do is pray.
I actually, I officially dropped my rag, which is what they called it, in prison, and I told the Bloods in prison that I was done, I was through. So they could do whatever they needed to, and they didn’t do anything. They just turned their back on me and said don’t ask them for any help or anything like that and they left me alone and that was it.
I mean I took off my shirt; I was ready to get beat down. And it would’ve been worth it to me to be out of here. And I told them no matter what, when I leave tonight, that I’m done and it’s over with and I don’t want to hear anything that I didn’t get jumped out because I was letting them know right then, “let’s do this right now, I don’t care how; it has to happen tonight, I was leaving- I’m out.”
If one is to assume that being a gangster precludes a dangerous lifestyle in which victimization and even death are more likely outcomes than they would be for those in the general population, and the gangster’s persona is a portrayal of fearlessness, then why would the gang member fear victimization regardless of who the perpetrator is? It could be argued that persons in the gang may be in a better position to harm the member who wants to leave, but even if that were the case, as evidenced by the respondents, there seemed to be little fear of retribution. If being in danger is not the reason for flight from the immediate area, then why would former gang members feel it necessary to flee the proximity of the gang? It may be that escaping the geographical location of the gang is necessary so that the person will not be drawn back into the gang life as suggested by
I know these cats are probably going to be like 25 like “yeah, I used to be a Crip.” But you really wasn’t. If you can say that and you still live in the same neighborhood and you can say you used to be a Crip, then you were never a Crip because there is no way you get out from under that.
I think that is the best way for someone to get out is to have a…it doesn’t necessarily have to be religion, but to have a support structure. If not, they are not getting out. It is just too hard.
Too hard because people won’t let them, or because they get dragged back into it?
You get dragged back into it. I mean, it becomes your whole identity, other people know who you are. If you don’t have a proper support system, you get dragged back into it. It is really hard. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but…most people are going to need a support system.
Staying in the same geographic location means that the person will be in close proximity to other gang members. He or she may still have strong emotions for friends and a long history of connections to these gang members. It may be that those who wish to leave the gang intuitively know that they have to put physical space between themselves and the other members to break this psychological connection. Failure to make the geographical, and subsequent psychological breaks, especially without an alternate support system as
I mean, it’s not like, you don’t put down your flag, like you never put down your flag, but you are not running the streets constantly, you are like actually living your life, you feel me. But like if it still came down to it, you would still be, you know, down to ride.
I mean you make a commitment, it’s like getting married, and getting a divorce or something, you know it’s kind of like…I mean I’d get married and get a divorce, but it’s different than that, you know, it’s not like you have to be there every single day for the gang. You know, so when we do expect something from you it’s not too much to just go and show, so other people who leave, like really try to leave, it’s a major sign of disrespect, you’re disrespecting everybody you got jumped in with, you’re disrespecting everybody from all generations. You’re just saying, I don’t respect you guys, I’m just gonna leave you guys.
Yeah, people left for the most part. If they left, they may not have associated themselves as much as they used to, but if it really came down to it, they would still come and fight or whatever…It’s almost like we’re brothers. We did all of this together, you just can’t leave me out here, especially if I’m by myself somewhere and I get into a fight. You might have left but I’m by myself and you know me and I know you.
When something happens on the streets and something happens to one of them, that is like you got feelings for, this your brother that you loved all of your life, you know and they get hurt, when you hear about it you gonna feel it…nothing is going to change that.
They wanted me to still mess around and do things and I just didn’t man, I didn’t want to. They kept coming and bugging me but they weren’t threatening me with any kinda ass whooping or killing me or nothing. Not the friends I have. They still wanted me to go out, but it wasn’t like that. I wanted to change and I eventually got away from it.
Man, I had no problem leaving it. The only problem I had leaving it, it wasn’t the fact of being in a gang, it was the friends I was leaving behind.
I don’t consider myself a part of an active group, but those are always going to be my buddies, and I think a lot of things through now, but I still have their back.
The most common method of leaving was a passive strategy in which members simply walked away, or stopped coming around and just faded out of the group. In some cases, the person announced to other members that they were leaving; in other cases they did not. Only three of the respondents indicated a violent dispensation as a result of their decision. Two stated that they were beat up, and that was it. Bones, a Blood, was the only respondent who stated that his separation was more violent.
But I told people, I was like “yo, man, I am trying to settle on my education, trying to focus, this that, da-da-da; I just can’t do this anymore.” And I was moving, so they was like “nah, man, you can’t get out like that.” And I was like “yo, I need this…. I been here for you for this long da-da-da-da.” So they was like either you get shot or you get stabbed. I chose to get stabbed. I’m still here so…
Gangs in this study reflected social relationships in conventional society. There are many situations of divorce, and most of them end without violence, however there are occasional occurrences that end tragically. In the same way, there may be some gangs that will not let members withdraw without violent consequences but there are many occasions that are non-violent separations.
Reasons
Ex-gang members gave many reasons for leaving the gang and often credited multiple causes rather than any single one (Table 4). Like Decker and Lauritsen (2002) found, leaving the gang due to deaths of close family or friends was a prominent reason for exiting gang networks. A general fear of danger, maturing out or simply wanting a better life, social dissolutions, religious conversion and incarceration were other reasons.
Reasons for Leaving the Gang.
Note. Some respondents gave multiple reasons for leaving.
aFriend or family member.
When did you decide that you wanted to do that (leave)?
My cousin died, one of the ones that I was close to. He died and everything was screwed up and I started seeing everything and everybody was acting all reckless.
Was this the one that was part of your group?
Yeah, the one I was close to, the one that was in the same group with me.
Your friend being killed was the motive that made you want to leave?
Yeah, that was the major thing.
For females, the primary reason for exiting was having a child. A slightly more commonly cited reason for gang desistance was maturing out, which meant anything from getting married, getting a job, getting an education, or simply growing up.
It’s a risk you have to take, to tell everybody “look, I’m a be a grown man now, look I’m done with this, I really gotta start doing something for myself.”
So I got to the point when I got to my grandmother’s house, I was like “this just doesn’t make any sense. You got grown people out here fighting kids because of what you wear.” So I sat down and talked to my stepfather, and talked to my uncles and everything, and I just left it alone. I even talked to my set, I told different members of my set “I’m done with it.” And they had so much respect for me because I was a lieutenant and everything, and they said “well, if you’re looking to do something else for the Nation on the positive side, then we gotta let you go.” So they looked at it as if, I was going to leave this and do something good for the community. I guess the difference is if you’re looking to join, leave, and not do anything, or leave and go to another gang, then it’s a problem.
A few respondents indicated religious conversion or incarceration as the primary reasons they chose to leave the gang.
I went to church one day and the preacher gave a really good…a really good testimony or whatever and then I went to this gang rally and I heard you know what a lot of people went through and I was like you know what, I wanna have a future.
I ended up walking into a church and having a born again experience and that, you know, that really gave me direction at that time and I went back and I told them I went to church and gave my life to God. And he said, “I’m going to bless you out, but if I ever catch you gang-banging, I personally will kill you.” I never gang banged again.
I just left it, I moved along and lived my life and put in jail a lot of times and I just got tired of it, so I figured I just gotta build a life and I moved on.
Reasons offered for leaving the gang were varied, and there were no particular reasons that stood out more than the others. The most common reasons were gang dissolution/deterioration and maturing out. Those who cited gang dissolution/deterioration explained that the gang simply fell apart, people stopped coming around, or the members became drug users. In the case of maturing out, members wanted to move on with their lives by getting a legitimate job or getting married. The remaining reasons, including death or danger to a family or close friend, having children, being incarcerated, and religious conversion are self-explanatory.
Regardless of the reasoning for leaving, there were usually no negative physical repercussions. In fact, occasionally the decision to leave inspired others to do so as well. Peer influence, especially from other gang members, is often viewed as negative. However, in the case of leaving the gang, it may be positive. The decision of one member to leave the gang could have a bandwagon effect on other members.
Sometimes that’ll even happen, where one person wants to leave and be grown and the rest will follow too.
I think there was a lot of us feeling the same way I did, but just nobody said nothing. I know this from when I got out, because a few other people were kind like “Yeah, I’m done too.” I don’t want to feel like I started anything, but I kinda think I did by speaking up that time.
Matza (1990) previously discussed this phenomenon in subcultures of delinquency in which members suffer from status anxiety and therefore refrain from voicing qualms or discontent concerning criminal/deviant behavior. However, once people do begin to openly state that they do not want to be a part of these activities, others begin to realize that they were suffering from a shared misperception that the members were committed to a life of delinquency, when really they had misgivings all along. This process occurs more frequently and becomes easier as more members mature out of the group.
Discussion
The popular method of reducing gang member behaviors to negative intent disguises the real social–psychological importance of behaviors and beliefs. Gang members may be much more aware of how relational attachments affect membership than they are given credit for. The blood-in, blood-out myth has previously been debunked by research showing the significant attrition that gangs actually suffer from. Yet these myths are still strongly held not only in popular culture but by reinforcement through gang member rhetoric. The current research has added to our exploration of this rhetoric.
Emic perspectives give us a more nuanced understanding of rhetoric that has heretofore caused misunderstanding and overreaction. When gang members say that they cannot leave the gang, the statement may not be an indication of fear of violent retaliation by other gang members but a statement of the person’s relationship to other people. They may have grown up their entire lives with the same people who not only protected them on the schoolyard from bullies, but fed them when they were starving or gave them money for bills and perhaps even saved their life. Gang member relationships can be similar to what other people call family, and actually leaving one’s family is much easier said than done. Without creating significant geographical distance between the former member and the other members, there is always a chance of negative events drawing the former member back in or ambivalent behavior in which the person returns to the comfort of known street life when other stresses occur. Ultimately, the gang member’s difficulty of letting go of relational attachments only illustrates their humanity and understanding of emotion.
Comparatively, there appeared to be a clear distinction in the popularity of entrance method by region. Fighting-type initiations were much more prevalent among the Bexar County respondents and criminal-type initiations were more common among the Orange county respondents, which fits with the historical profiles of the respective locations. San Antonio has had a history of territorial gangs and violent behavior dating back to at least 1950 (Klein, 1995; Spergel, 1995; Valdez, 2003; Sikes, 1997), whereas Orlando gangs gained attention post-1990 and seem to engage in more profit-oriented criminal ventures than violent conflicts (Corzine et al., 2009). Passive strategies in which respondents walked away or faded away were common in both locales, while geographical flight from the gang was more prevalent among Orange County interviewees. Counterintuitive to what would be expected, of the few respondents who suffered violence upon leaving the gang, the most severe instances were in Orlando. This study included 48 current, former, and ambivalent gang members from gangs in most of the nationally known affiliations: Bloods, Crips, People, Folks, and Surenos as well as independent gangs. Notably, there were no particular patterns apparent regarding gang affiliation save that there were respondents from every affiliation that passively left the gang as well as respondents who fled the geographic locations, indicating that these gang exit strategies may be applicable across the gang landscape.
There are numerous implications that emerge from this data. First, there are varied methods of entrance into gangs, some of which are nonviolent. This may negate some attempts to prevent gang joining through the use of horror stories about what potential members have to do as well as reduce the effectiveness of laws against gang initiations. Prevention efforts may be better served in pursuing alternatives to legal and rhetorical threats.
Second, it is clear from these data, in conjunction with previous literature, that leaving the gang is not only possible, but common. There are many reasons that individuals choose to leave gangs. Tertiary intervention should be stressed in an effort to encourage gang desistance in crisis situations. Furthermore, successful gang desistance appears to be based on geographical distance or replacement with an alternate support structure. Without one of these elements, the former gang member seems to be at significant risk of being drawn back into the gang environment due to strong emotional ties. Desistance efforts may benefit from providing access to milieus that address both of these issues such as vocational or collegiate schooling in a different area or occupations such as the military that provide economic security as well as relocation.
The study used a snowball sample that could have resulted in the homogeneity of respondents in terms of behavioral dynamics. This limitation considerably hampers the generalizability of the study. However, the study participants were very diverse in race/ethnicity and gang groups. This research followed Eurogang Program protocols to allow for comparative data with other Eurogang studies. This endeavor was comparative on multiple levels, by looking at gang members in two metropolitan areas, Orlando and San Antonio, which have not been primary focal points of gang research. An added bonus was that nearly half of the sample consisted of gang migrants with origins in California, Chicago, New York, and other cities, allowing comparisons of gang behaviors in multiple locales.
Future research may further explore the dynamics indicated in this study by verifying or expanding the typology of gang entrance and examining ways to counteract or prevent these events. Further examination of successful gang desistance and the well-being of individuals who have left the gang may also create a knowledge boon to the desistance effort. More research on gang processes may have a significant impact on prevention and intervention efforts.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
Presented in part at the Southwestern Social Science Association Conference In Houston, TX 2010
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was conducted with partial funding from a scholarship through the Eurogang Project Young Scholars Fund.