Roughly speaking (and unfairly generalizing), there are 2 different and well-known schools of thought when it comes to reducing crime and increasing public safety. Punishment vs. rehabilitation. To make it clear where I'm coming from, I believe that punishment is no more than a tool in achieving rehabilitatio and that public safety is impossible without rehabilitation.
I strongly believe that yesterday's arrest of Alex Sanchez of Homies Unidos is a consequence of the punishment school's mistrust of the rehabilitation proponents. I freely admit that I am basing this belief on a lot of assumptions. Is it possible that he was actually using Homies Unidos as a front to his gang activities? Highly, highly unlikely. But the possibility is not zero. But I still believe his innocence, and that informs my reading of this event.
The government charged Alex of 2 counts: Count 9 is 18 USC § 1959(a)(5); and Count 16, 21 USC § 846. 18 USC § 1959(a)(5) is conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering activity, and 21 USC § 846 is conspiracy to commit a crime. Count 16 alleges that Alex, along with other named defendants, conspired to possess with intent to distribute (1) 50 grams of crack cocaine, (2) 1000 kilograms of marijuana, (3) 500 grams of methamphetamine, and (4) 5 kilograms of cocaine.
The 66 page indictment offers no evidence to support Count 16 and alleges only that Alex and other named defendants "had a series of phone conversations with each other and with other members of MS-13, during which they conspired to kill Walter Lacinos." Indictment, p. 39.
Based on this and no other evidence, can Alex be indicted and convicted for violating 18 USC § 1959(a)(5)? I'm not a RICO lawyer, but my reading of the statute tells me that it's possible. That is, it is possible that neither Alex nor FBI did anything wrong from their respective perspective.
The statute boils down to this: "Whoever ... for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity... conspires [to murder] shall be punished." So the government has to prove that not only did Alex conspire with the named defendants to murder Walter Lacinos, but that he also did it to "gain[] entrance to or ... increas[e] position in" MS-13. And this wouldn't be so difficult.
Imagine if Alex indeed participated in a series of phone conversations where the killing of Walter Lacinos was discussed by the named defendants, for the purpose of gaining their trust by showing his ability to be a trustworthy confidant. If Alex admits to that, then he will be admitting to the purpose of "gaining entrance to or ... increasing position in" MS-13.
What about conspiracy to murder? If Alex said anything at all sympathetic to MS-13's plan to kill Walter Lacinos, then it's possible to argue that he actively participated in the planning of the murder and that he desired the end result that Walter Lacinos be murdered.
Thus, by inserting himself so actively and precariously in the inner circle of MS-13 in his effort to dismantle its operation and to get its members out of the gang, Alex might have run afoul of the law as interpreted by some.
In the eyes of the rehabilitation school, it is ridiculous to argue that Alex talked to MS-13 members for the purpose of increasing his position in MS-13, because he is not part of MS-13 to begin with. It is equally ridiculous to argue that he wanted Walter Lacinos killed or actively helped MS-13 plan out the murder.
In the eyes of the punishment school, however, the matter is entirely different. Once a gangbanger, always a gangbanger. Alex never left the gang, and his sympathetic words sound awful like an active encouragement to MS-13. Indeed, I often hear that claim made by punishment proponents against rehabilitation proponents--that rehabilitation doesn't work and only encourages "criminals" to evade the negative consequences of their acts, i.e. that rehabilitation enables them to commit more crimes.
So this is why I think that the LA Police Department and the FBI went after Alex, all within the scope of what they believe is a reasonable interpretation of RICO and the conspiracy law. And, if so, this is a political fight spilling over to the court, where it does not belong. If the court convicts Alex of the alleged RICO conspiracy to murder, then it will certainly chill the community's efforts to reach out to those mired in a gang life. That's tragic, and that's why I sincerely hope that Alex is freed soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment