The United States Department of Justice along with federal and state law enforcement have breathed new life in to an old statute called the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations act of 1970, commonly referred to as RICO. On July 7, 2011 a federal jury returned guilty verdicts against 3 individuals who were accused of, among other things, conspiring to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities through participation in a criminal enterprise. The criminal enterprise was an alleged street gang called Chain Gang or Wolf Pack. This trial was the first of its kind in the Western District of New York. The use of RICO against alleged street gangs is becoming more common across the country.
Even if you have never seen the practical application of RICO at trial, you may already associate the term with the Mafia. The statute was inspired by and originally intended for use as a tool to combat organized crime. The traditional criminal enterprise had a definable structure with leadership, ranks and positions. They commonly had a financial purpose, rules for membership and participation, and everyone functioned within their role for a common goal. Keep in mind the context in which the law was written. If you compare the traditional criminal enterprise to the typical "street gang" in Rochester, New York you will find few similarities. Then how is it that a statute designed to combat organized crime can be used against 15, 16 and 17 year old kids? The broadly worded language of the statute combined with generous judicial interpretations of the law have led to what prosecutors have called a "powerful tool" to combat street level drug trafficking and violence. Not only is RICO a powerful tool, but it is a powerful weapon that if not applied in the proper context can lead to kids being wrongfully accused and convicted of something they did not do. Many convictions under RICO carry with them a mandatory life sentence. One act of attempted murder, for example, carries with it up to 25 years in New York State. If multiple defendants are lumped together and held accountable for everyone else's actions, the combined bad acts that make up the "pattern of racketeering activity" drastically increase the potential sentence upon a conviction. Under RICO, the law makes no consideration as to who is more or less responsible.
Some say they do not care. If they rid the streets of drug dealers and violence then it works, right? Not so fast, this "ends justify the means" analysis has brought grave consequences to innocent people throughout history. Just because you might agree with an outcome in one situation does not place a limit on how the government might wield it's "powerful tool" in the next case. The use of RICO can just as easily be targeted in the suburbs as it can in the city. Parents of a child who has fallen in to a lifestyle of addiction might find themselves in a position of watching their loved one be associated with a criminal organization, as the law defines it, namely the individuals who the drugs are being purchased from. Given the loose wording of the law and the expanding interpretation of what qualifies as a criminal enterprise, individuals who might never have made a deliberate choice to participate in a corrupt organization might unwittingly find themselves facing charges more serious than they could have ever imagined. I believe this is the case with many alleged street gang members. RICO is an expansion of the government's ability to sweep more people under one umbrella. Even though each individual can be prosecuted for the wrongs they are accused of, the government can get more bang for their buck with RICO. Every person, however, accused of a crime, has rights fundamental to our way of life. What more powerful weapon can there be to rid our streets of violence than to do away with the constitution? What more powerful tool in the battle against drug trafficking than to do away with the 4th Amendment? The ends do not always justify the means. The means in this case is the broad language and interpretation of RICO. I believe a closer examination of the purpose and language of the statute must take place to avoid wrongful, unfair convictions and sentences.
No comments:
Post a Comment