Most sociologists get their information from reading other sociologists and academic writers in related fields. Sociologists hope to impress the jury with their degrees and scholarly publications. Sometimes they write opinions and studies based on statistical data. Look at Nught’s listed published papers and you’ll see that’s probably what he did.
Occasionally sociologists interview subjects (gang members) in clinical settings and document these interviews. Later they interpret these interviews based on sociological theories.
The academic gang expert’s “expert” opinion will be based on these academic theories. Other sociologists will have very different opinions based on different input and their own theories and the philosophies that they advocate. Although these differing sociologists might hold similar positions in equivalent universities, some of their ideas might seem kooky or extreme to a jury. In fact, many sociologists disagree with theories on the very definition of a gang, what a gang member is, how gangs start, and how to best deal with them.
Most sociologists are vulnerable to cross-examination because they have little or no real contact with local street gangs in the gang’s natural environment. Street gangs in America are covert criminal organizations, making any true statistical or clinical studies difficult. Gang crimes are commonly under reported for many reasons including: the victims’ fear of reprisal, the suspects not being identified as gang members, and many of the gang victims adhering to the gang code of silence.
Also, when interviewed by sociologists, gang members commonly lie. They do this for several reasons including: to appear less criminally culpable, because the academic interviewer has little ability to verify and check the facts so it’s fun to BS them, and because discussing gang business with people outside the gang is prohibited. Consequently, a lot of academic gang member interviews are full of inaccurate information.