Frank Lucas a Rat and a Murderer - Term Paper Example

 Frank Lucas a Rat and a Murderer Frank Lucas is known to be a drug kingpin and a crime boss in the United States between the late 1960’s and early 70’s. He was born and raised in North Carolina. His criminal life started from petty crimes, such as gambling and extortion, and advanced to big time drug trafficking. Such success in the world of drug hustling was all learned from an expert of his group when he was associated with the leader of gangster in Harlem, named Bumpy Johnson. The circumstances gave him the opportunity to be molded the way he wanted his life to be. He became even more prominent in the arena of drug hustling when he was on his own following the death of his former boss. He travelled around to reach as far as Bangkok, Thailand, where he met a former United State army sergeant with similar business of smuggling drugs from Asia to the United States as destination. His association with the drug syndicates made him more professional in drug dealing. Frank Lucas employed his trusted friends and family members to be his associates. With his determination in this business, he became wealthy with millions of money deposited in the bank of Cayman Island, properties spread around the United Sates, and a lifestyle afforded by the rich and the powerful only. In 1975, his house in New Jersey was raided leading to his arrest and convictions. He was to serve a term of 70 years in prison; however, the term was reduced and substituted by a lifetime parole. Interestingly, his arrest and conviction made him divulge a larger group of Mafia drug lords operating in New York, as well as some corrupt police enforcers. This shortened his term in jail, however, after his release, he was later again arrested with the same drug violation. With the assistance of his former captor, he was renewed and became remorseful of having drug hustling as his enterprise (Culvert, 2007). The life of Frank Lucas as a drug lord criminal could be fully understood with the application of differential association theory. This is the best theory that explains well the personality and behavior of Frank Lucas because, by definition and assumption of the theory, his case seems to demonstrate it all. Looking back at the life of Frank Lucas, one can see how he acquired his criminal personality through his interactions with the criminal people, which was reinforced with the environment he was in. The members in his gangster group made a significant contribution to what he has become. Although he has the tendency to commit crime even without being associated with a primary group to influence him as evident with his earlier petty crime activities, his socialization with the criminal groups played a crucial role in molding his criminal tendencies. This is the essence of the differential association theory. Differential association theory denotes that as the individual interacts with his immediate group, he may acquire definitions of proper and improper behavior. The term ‘differential association’ is used by Sutherland to describe the whole process a person is exposed to in acquiring attitudes and criminal acts of the group he belongs. As the person involves himself with the members, he has the tendency to imitate the cultural practices, as well as the personality traits, and live with the learned behaviors. This is especially so when the environment favors the execution of criminal activities. Differential association theory could also go beyond to include other forms of deviancy such as truancy, smoking, early sexual behavior and the like (Schaefer, 2000). Similar to any other learning, the theory also posits that the extent of influence of the group on its members is affected with the length, duration, and frequency of social interaction. This is another salient feature attesting that the differential association theory applies in the case of Frank Lucas. The amount of learning depends on the above factors. The longer time the person stays with the group and the deeper the brotherhood is, the more the group becomes influential. The biography of Lucas reflects that he had been with the criminal group for a long period of time. Although he changed his primary group at some point in his life, it is evident he chose a group with similar culture and personality. With this, it could be posited that he had a deep commitment with the group more than his family. Other studies also found out that frequent communication with the criminals alone may influence other people (Schaefer, 2000). Lucas learned the drives, motives, and rationalization in carrying out his illicit activities from his group he was associated with since an early age until his maturity. In addition, he learned the techniques of law breaking and became a well rounded drug dealer due to his interaction with the gang to the extent of employing such strategies even after the death of their gang leader in Harlem. This is reflected in his traveling outside the United States to continue and expand his illicit business. This likewise shows that the strategies of drug dealing were perfected by Frank Lucas as he had confidence to do it his own way. When interviewed on how he handled his business, he admittedly divulged that he transferred the heroine using coffins of soldiers, an idea crafted by his former leader Johnson which he learned, modified a bit and employ it as an effective way to sell the prohibited drugs. It seems, Lucas learned well from his master and other members. Association with delinquent groups is indicated as the strongest predictor of delinquency in all ages. This concept was explained at length in the book by Siegel (2007), although he made a distinct example employing adolescents. Siegel discussed that peer groups exert a powerful influence on their members by pressuring them to conform in any task they may wish to achieve, including illegal activities. Along this line, individuals who are placed in an environment where robbery, aggression, drug hustling, and prostitution are observed as a normal day to day activity will act and think in the same manner. In contrast, when a person is exposed to an environment conducive to learn and grow, he may acquire behaviors which are in conformity to the social norms. The concept of socialization as the strongest indicator of delinquent behavior corroborates with the idea of Watson. In his famous statement -- “Give me a dozen healthy infants well formed and my own specified world to bring them up in and I will guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any kind of specialist I might select: doctor, lawyer, merchant, chief, even beggar and thief, regardless of talent, penchants tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors” (Santrock & Yussen, 1984) – he demonstrates that the environment in general including peers who endorse deviant behavior exerts a strong influence in the formation of personality. This scenario was again exemplified in the case of Frank Lucas. He derived most of his decision making from his group during his earlier age until he reached the age to be of bad influence to others as well. Not only criminal or delinquent personality traits are learned from socialization with others, but also proper behavior. This also was shown when frank Lucas was renewed. After his release, he transformed from being a criminal into a regular citizen and was able to go back to the mainstream society with his association to a different group advocating the socially acceptable behavior. The change in his personality depended on the people with whom he came in contact, thus, the theory is also employed to rehabilitate delinquent individuals. A positive personality is a result of a healthy environment and a nurturing relationship, while criminal tendencies may result from dysfunctional surrounding. This is most important when the person is still young because much of the behavior is learned through observation, retention, and imitation. Such concept is also supported with similar theories such as the social learning theory of Bandura. Siegel further pointed out that members who find emotional support, security, belongingness, and recognition from their group are likely to conform readily to their command, in which frank Lucas is no exemption. Members are more likely to engage in criminal acts when behaviors are promoted and endorsed by their primary group. The effect of socialization on personality and behavior is likewise supported with the study by Li, Stanton and Feigelman (1999), in which they suggest that adolescents who are exposed to drug trafficking activities have a strong influence on the commission of crimes, not to exclude trafficking drug itself. They further found out that risky behaviors predisposing them to violence could also result from such activities. This might be attributed to the effect of cultural transmission approach where gang members learn the culture of their criminal mates. The study conducted by Herrenkohl et al (2000) corroborates with the study by Li et al in supporting the concept that association with bad influences contributes negatively to the individual’s personality. Herrenkohl et al explained that adolescents who are exposed to more risks are seven times more subject to commit criminal acts as compared to youths with no delinquent associates. Although, there are other criminology theories to explain the case of Frank Lucas; the differential association theory explains it best. For one reason, the behavior of Lucas is not a result of impulsive behavior but it was learned through his association with drug dealers. His criminal and non criminal personalities are a result of influence of other people. The group he happened to be with provided him with the reinforcement, definition, and grounds for imitation of criminal acts. References Culvert, E. (2007). Frank Lucas was a rat and a murderer. High beam research. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com Herrenkohl, T. I., Maguin, E., Hill, K. G. et al. (2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. J Adolesc Health. 26(3):176–86. Li, X., Stanton, B., & Feigelman, S. (1999). Exposure to drug trafficking among urban, low-income African American children and adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 153(2):161-8. Santrock, J., & Yussen, S. (1984). Children and adolescents: A developmental perspective. Brown publishers. Dubuque. Iowa. Schaefer, R. (2006). Sociology. New York. McGraw-Hill companies. Siegel, L. (2007). Criminology. Wadsworth publishing. Read More