ext_35513 ([identity profile] cemeterygates.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2007-08-30 11:09 am

Somerville News Coverage of MS-13 Arrest

I think that the Somerville News piece about the recent MS-13 arrest did an unusually good job depicting the grey area of morality that is so often ignored by the media in their coverage of criminals. I know that such an opinion is commonly viewed by the masses as bleeding-heart, or liberal-guilt, or what have you, but I can honestly say I am proud to be part of a community that recognizes the human side of all people, and I feel this article is an excellent example of that. I do not know specifically what actions Morales was responsible for as a gangster, and I do not question that MS-13 is a very powerful and dangerous entity; but because of this article perhaps a few more people also reflect on the fact that no-one is only a thug.

I would welcome your thoughts.

[identity profile] srakkt.livejournal.com 2007-08-30 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)
"If this person was in fact guilty of a crime"

Nobody is arrested because they are guilty, in our system. People are arrested because there is enough evidence to allege that they *may* be guilty. This is an important distinction to make. It protects us all, in that it guarantees that we are assumed innocent until it is proved otherwise in a court of law, but it also means that unless we expect guilty criminals to turn themselves in and peacefully await trial, that people who've not yet been proved guilty get arrested. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got.

It occurs to me that I may be getting needlessly pedantic, and just misunderstood your phrasing. Eeek. Sorry.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2007-08-30 09:13 pm (UTC)(link)
My wording was sloppy, I agree. The main point is that if he's suspected of a violent crime, and there's enough evidence to prosecute, that's what he should have been arrested for. There is no need for ICE to be involved at all.

[identity profile] srakkt.livejournal.com 2007-08-30 09:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it's a question of resources, unfortunately. A federal agency with cash to spend and collated databases is in a better position to find him in the first place. I agree that in a perfect world, a violent offender would be apprehended by local authorities in a timely enough manner that he'd never even float an alert in a federal database, but that often isn't the case.