Judge Rejects Maximum Sentence for Latin Kings Gang Leader

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 04:56:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A federal judge in Chicago has rejected the Gang Tax. Prosecutors sought a 45 year sentence for Fernando King, also known as "the Supreme Inca", saying it would send a zero tolerance message to street gangs. King was the #2 leader of the Latin King street gang.

While acknowledging that Fernando King, 38, was the leader of a gang responsible for narcotics trafficking and murder, U.S. District Judge David Coar said King could be sentenced only for the crimes for which he was convicted and not the broader destruction caused by the gang.

"He was a leader of (the gang) and for that morally he is accountable," said Coar. "Legally, he is accountable for what he was convicted of - two drug counts."

It sounds like the Government was engaging in a bit of grandstanding with the Judge: [More...]

[King] also alleged that prosecutors offered him a sentence of about 9 years in prison if he helped nab Augustin Zambrano, the Latin King's reputed No. 1 leader. King said he refused the deal.

So, what they are really seeking is zero tolerance for gang members who don't cooperate and rat out others. For those that do, they have no problem with early release back to the streets. What kind of message does that send?

Good for Judge Coar for applying the law and rejecting the phony deterrence meme.

< Obama To Wall Street: I Am "The Only Thing Between You And The Pitchforks” | Friday Evening Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judge Rejects Maximum Sentence for Latin Kings Gang Leader | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

what about RICO? (none / 0) (#1)
by diogenes on Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 09:38:20 PM EST

Somehow I doubt that gang members are going to rat out the #2 capo. As it says in the Godfather, all it takes is the death of one link to remove the chain of evidence. May those of you who dislike the deterrence meme one day have to testify as an eyewitness against a drug gang leader.

I'd always dislike the deterrence meme (none / 0) (#2)
by MrConservative on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:09:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Diogenes said (none / 0) (#5)
by Mikeb302000 on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:26:20 PM EST

"As it says in the Godfather, all it takes is the death of one link to remove the chain of evidence."

Could you tell us where? I don't remember it, which could mean it's in III, the one with which I'm least familiar.

[ Parent ]

: Godfather I book (none / 0) (#6)
by diogenes on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 07:28:41 PM EST

When Tom Hagan was considered for consigliere (#2 person to the Don), it was mentioned that the don gives orders to the consigliere who gives them to the caporegime, and on the line, so if one link disappears, the any case against the Don disappears. Any good gang would operate this way, making it extremely hard to convict the people on top. Why do you think that they had to convict Al Capone for tax evasion.

[ Parent ]

it isn't the government's job (none / 0) (#3)
by cpinva on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 12:30:02 AM EST

to establish and enforce morals, just laws that can withstand judicial and constitutional scrutiny. morals aren't mentioned in the constitution.

: I'd say the preamble ... (none / 0) (#4)
by Bemused on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:28:39 AM EST

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
...without question asserts moral reasons for the establishment of our government, and it's pretty odd to argue that our founders, or anyone else serious, has ever suggested that establishing and enforcing the moral consensus of society through enacting laws and their enforcement is improper.
I think the FAR better argument isd that laws without a moral basis, and one that is widely accepted, are suspect.

[ Parent ]