High Amount Of Involvement In Organized Crime example essay topic

Organized Crime Within the United States Organized crime is a widespread topic of concern among many Americans due to its popularity in the media and entertainment industry. The public is aware of its existence, yet is not fully aware of why and how this complex "underworld" exists. In order to fully understand this area of criminology, one must take into account the characteristics of organized crime, the variables that allow organized crime to thrive, its large-scale effects on society, and the measures that have been taken to extinguish organized crime. The roots of organized crime can be traced back to periods of vast amounts of immigration within the United States. Many of the immigrants sought wealth and prosperity upon their arrivals but inevitably found themselves to be members of the lower class.

While some groups, such as the Jews, were able to climb the social ladder, other groups faced hostility and racism, hindering their acquisition of wealth. Their movement toward crime can be explained by Coward and Ohlin's Differential Opportunities Theory. This states that there are both legitimate and illegitimate means to achieve desired goals. In the immigrants' case, they "want what American society offers and expects of all - success - yet they are prevented from legitimately achieving this goal because of opportunity blockage, that is poverty and discrimination" (O'Kane 27).

In turn, the immigrants turned to a criminal subculture as means to attain their goals. They began violating an extreme amount of criminal statutes such as extortion, murder, bribery, fraud, narcotics, and labor racketeering. Thus far, the focus of this topic has been on early groups of organized criminals within the United States. The face of organized crime has changed within the past few decades, however, and is currently in a period of transition.

Whereas the Italian-Americans were once the rulers of the underworld, African-American and Hispanic involvement has been on the increase. This cultural shift is significant because it alters the infrastructure of organized crime within the United States. Criminal groups form in different manners than in previous years. Within Italian-American organized crime, kinship is the primary segue into organized crime. Among African-Americans and Hispanics, however, there are two distinct types of linkages among criminals. First are causal relationships, "which serve to introduce individuals to each other and into joint criminal ventures", the other being criminal relationships, which are "based on a common core of activity in crime" (Ianni 1998).

According to Ianni, there are six types of causal relationships within the networks of organized crime. The first relationship stems from childhood bonds in which the individuals were of the same race and socioeconomic background. The second segue into organized crime comes from the recruitment of talented young boys. There is also a high amount of involvement in organized crime that stems from past prison acquaintances. Although infrequent, the fourth type of causal relationship is with wives and lovers that have been known to take part in organized crime. Next are kinship ties, which are also capable of fostering criminal relationships.

The last and most common type of causal relationship is between partners who are in complementary business positions. Ianni contends that the strengths of each of these causal relationships is due to the fact that each is "marked by a sense of mutual trust in the personal characters of those within the relationship" (Ianni 1998). Although no two groups of organized criminals are exactly alike, many share a common framework and acknowledge one another as suppliers of a demanded "Mafioso" protection (Nelken 1995). Overall, there are two widely used analogies when analyzing organized crime: the quasi-government analogy and the firm analogy. The quasi-government analogy stems from the fact that "the core business of criminal organizations is to make the rules in given territories (be they geographical or functional) so that they can extort money ("taxes") and impose their own regulations on legal and / or illegal businesses" ("Theories of the Firm" 1996). The firm analogy is founded on the assumption that criminal organizations are involved in different markets and face competition (from other criminal groups) within those markets.

"One way to minimize such competition (and maintain a monopoly position) is to invest in weapons and hit-men who will physically deter potential entrants to the market" ("Theories of the Firm" 1996). Organized criminals will typically form relationships with legitimate businesses in order to have a safe front for their illegal activities. It is believed that organized crime actually has more similarities to legitimate economic activities that most would like to admit (Nelken 1995). Like legitimate businesses, criminal groups develop codes to oversee their relationship with the non-criminal world (Ianni 1998). Because of these factors, many have raised questions as to whether organized criminals recognize themselves as criminals, or whether they are merely attempting to achieve the American dream of prosperity by providing a "genuine service" (Nelken 1995). Another factor that allows organized crime to exist and thrive is the link between criminal groups and politicians.

Politicians can ultimately benefit from ties with organized crime by "paralyzing the hand of the law" in order to receive "campaign contributions, organization work, votes at election time" and the ability to participate "in the profits of the company" (Tyler 52). Organized criminals have also been known to intimidate and influence police officials (Anechiario, 1998). This is not to say that all law enforcement officers and politicians work side by side with the mafia. On the contrary, many actions have been taken by both groups in a collaborative effort to eliminate organized crime. The Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCR S) is a government department that solely focuses on organized crime.

This department comes into collaboration with investigative agencies such as the FBI, DEA, and by working with the attorney general's organized crime council (web 2000). The government is now auditing individuals more frequently with an "intense concentration on corruption control" that expands and articulates the definition of corruption (Anechiario 1998). Anechiario (1998) goes on to explain that the government regulates the economic life of public employees and their immediate families to ensure that they have no ties to organized crime. One article states that once ties with politicians are severed, the government should take it one step further by cutting subsidies and public procurement programs to minimize what organized criminals can "appropriate and dole out" (Theories of the Firm 1996). In 1980, congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. This has sparked a great deal of controversy, however, because of its apparent racial and social discriminatory implications.

"Although there must be a likelihood of criminal wrongdoing to allow a civil suit, it is clear that RICO, as criminal law, has departed from the traditional 'innocent until proven guilty' philosophy" (Miller 1999). Whereas typical white-collar crime entails asset forfeiture once criminals are convicted, organized criminals must forfeit their assets once an accusation is made. Congress ensures that "the need to preserve the availability of the property through the entry of the requested order outweighs the hardship on any party against whom the order is to be entered" (Miller 1999). They base this on the assumption that organized criminals are more likely to destroy the assets in an effort to rid themselves of any incriminating evidence.

As mentioned before, the majority of organized crime is committed by members of minority groups. When compared to the legal treatment of white-collar crime, one could argue that RICO not only subjects these groups to an unfair disadvantage in court, yet merely serves as a tool to keep minorities from climbing the social ladder. Furthermore, it is also believed that RICO is ineffective in combating organized crime, yet serves as "a weapon most frequently used by wealthy and large corporations, in order to monopolize" (Miller 1999). Although it appears as though many actions are being taken in an effort to extinguish organized crime, RICO illustrates that the government may have ulterior motives behind their efforts.

If this is the case, the government must expect organized crime to increase according to the Differential Opportunities Theory. According to this theory, organized crime occurs when minority groups are unable to achieve the 'American dream' through legitimate means. By further oppressing these groups, the government places them back at square one where they will most likely continue to lead criminal lives. Thus the most effective manner to alleviate organized crime is to ensure that the aforementioned groups have access to legitimate means in achieving their goals. By making this effort, the government would have a greater chance of preventing the underclass's development into the underworld.

Bibliography

Anechiarico, Frank. "Administrative Culture and Civil Society". Administration & Society. 30.1 (1998): 13-22.
Criminal Division. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2 March 2000.