Nbadan
01-04-2005, 03:41 AM
The state of New York is preparing to put a terrorist on trial. He's not a member of Al-Qaeda though; he's a member of the St. James Boys, a Mexican-American gang. The terrorism charge added to the murder case against Edgar Morales will remove all options for sentencing except life without parole.
Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang.
Morales faces the most serious charge of second-degree murder as a terrorist act. A New York grand jury returned the charges against him in connection with the shooting death of 10-year-old Melanie Mendez, who died from gunshot wounds two years earlier
"Gangs are a forum to promote terrorism," said Balvoni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame. "Therefore, the anti-terrorism statue would be applicable against them, even if the original intent for this law was not exactly to prosecute them."
Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=3&u=/nm/20041228/us_nm/security_terrorist_dc)
I consider a gang member to be among the lowest forms of criminal- second only to congressmen. There probably should be laws which add to the sentences of gang members- in some states they are already in place. That being said, no such law exists in this case and the misapplication of the terrorism law sets an extremely dangerous prescedent.
I find it digusting that law enforcement would twist and manipulate the events of 9/11 and the preventative measures enacted afterward to achieve other social aims which they have been unable to pass into law on their own merit. If they want to crack down on gang members they need to pass an applicable law, not misapply other laws.
Suppose plain old ordinary joe gets into a fist fight that he didn't start and wins. The district attourney who handles the case just happens to have a particular aversion to violence, which right or wrong is entirely separate from the law. This DA is unhappy with the light sentence that he expects from a battery charge, especially under these circumstances, so the DA trumps up the case with this very same anti-terrorism law by saying that all violence is terrorist in nature. Well now if the defendant looses the stakes are WAY too high, so he has almost no option but plea bargain, and he's going down for a crime he never comitted because the personal beliefs of law enforcement officials were taken as license to manipulate the law in ways not approved through our democratic process.
Morales, 22, was indicted on murder and other charges as acts of terror in May, along with 18 other members of the St. James Boys Gang, a Mexican and Mexican-American street gang.
Morales faces the most serious charge of second-degree murder as a terrorist act. A New York grand jury returned the charges against him in connection with the shooting death of 10-year-old Melanie Mendez, who died from gunshot wounds two years earlier
"Gangs are a forum to promote terrorism," said Balvoni spokeswoman Lisa Angerame. "Therefore, the anti-terrorism statue would be applicable against them, even if the original intent for this law was not exactly to prosecute them."
Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=3&u=/nm/20041228/us_nm/security_terrorist_dc)
I consider a gang member to be among the lowest forms of criminal- second only to congressmen. There probably should be laws which add to the sentences of gang members- in some states they are already in place. That being said, no such law exists in this case and the misapplication of the terrorism law sets an extremely dangerous prescedent.
I find it digusting that law enforcement would twist and manipulate the events of 9/11 and the preventative measures enacted afterward to achieve other social aims which they have been unable to pass into law on their own merit. If they want to crack down on gang members they need to pass an applicable law, not misapply other laws.
Suppose plain old ordinary joe gets into a fist fight that he didn't start and wins. The district attourney who handles the case just happens to have a particular aversion to violence, which right or wrong is entirely separate from the law. This DA is unhappy with the light sentence that he expects from a battery charge, especially under these circumstances, so the DA trumps up the case with this very same anti-terrorism law by saying that all violence is terrorist in nature. Well now if the defendant looses the stakes are WAY too high, so he has almost no option but plea bargain, and he's going down for a crime he never comitted because the personal beliefs of law enforcement officials were taken as license to manipulate the law in ways not approved through our democratic process.