Controlling Organized Crime - Coursework Example

Running Head: Controlling Organized Crime Controlling Organized Crime Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts Tutor’s Name 14 July 2009 Organized crime is an international; problem affected millions of people around the world. The main countries involved in organized crime are Columbia, Venezuela, Russia, China and the USA. The articles and books suggest that organized crime is controlled by the international crime organization aimed to save their business at any price. Among organized crime leaders the crime connection is quite straightforward. Though social researchers disagree over why people are drawn into organized crime, there is no argument among people so engaged (Abadinsky, 2009). The main argument is money, and the pursuit of it—particularly among major criminals pushing cocaine and heroin—evokes every illegal act that falls within the analytical categories discussed above (economic and corruptive), with the prevalence of the direct impact occurring in the systemic and corruptive areas. Control of organized crime is one of the most difficult police functions. Organized crime is defined as illegal activity aimed to generate a money profit with the help of illegal methods and activities. Organized crime is centralized activity based on strict authority and hierarchical structure of the enterprise. Abadinsky (20090 underlines that small countries with weak military government are the main producers of illicit drugs. Criminality is linked to the systemic violence and corruptive categories, as is their related criminal support system, which focuses on acquiring, securing, laundering, and safely guarding money and getting and preserving positions of power. Organized crime does not end with these more sensational and individual acts of depriving, hurting, maiming, and destroying. Even the "benign" repatriation of criminals assets through illegal cash laundering—whether this entails investment in lawful enterprise or disbursement to cover business debts in the underground economy—adds to criminality. Beyond that, criminal leaders corrupt the state or political leaders who run it in order to improve goods movement and access to intelligence, protect persons and property, allow for easier repatriation of financial resources, and build respectability through political influence (Lunde, 2006). Control of organized crime requires international cooperation and interaction between the First and the Third world countries. Allowing for the organized crime groups, more decentralized and less prone to syndication and violence, in many isolated geographical areas there is more finance to be made in illegal drugs and human trafficking than in any other available product or service, despite the risk and loss factors associated with an illegal drug trade. Drug money buys the peasant in Burma a new quality of life, one to be defended at all costs. On the other hand, it also provides the wherewithal for some social groups to prosecute political demands). Both political leaders and major drug traffickers in cocaine and heroin are world-class criminal leaders deprive, hurt, maim, and destroy out of business necessity or political goal. Most individuals consider this to be criminal, and much of the criminality is funded by financial assets (Abadinsky, 2009). Experience bred in conflict has honed control and discipline among criminal organizations worldwide. The new criminal methods, supported by the state, are much more sophisticated than the old ones of the mafia. One international critic admits that international drug traffickers have become the "global mafia," a new monolithic threat able of invoking fears such as those stirred up by East-West rhetoric about communism and capitalism (Abadinsky, 2009). Conspiracies whose combined intelligence, firepower, and will for violence exceed the capacity of some states to restrain or counter them. Such solutions create a safe, near foolproof way needing to launder vast quantities of financial resources. New phones each week (to hamper call tracing), funds bounced through a dozen banks in less than n hour, and an electronic collection system that combined diverse deposits to a single source in ways virtually impossible to find—this is a perfect formula for the secret transactions that constitute the cards of the global criminal leaders (Lunde, 2006). In order to eliminate the Control of organized crime, it is crucial to introduce democratic political reforms and change the government in less developed countries. Strict control of officials and the police should be the core policy of the state. Petty street vendors should be frequently removed from the main roads, and the state should allow that such a massive assault on civilized decency cannot necessarily be attributed to them. However, it appears the isolated entrepreneurial drug vendor is increasingly being replaced by network sellers ultimately tied to major and middle-criminal leaders. Insofar as this is true, the state should control almost all trafficking to hasten processes of social disorganization (Roth 2009). The assaults on state authorities even allowing that some governments may be worthy of attack and their laws appropriately subverted—create considerable social and economic overhead and institutional squander and debris, an effect particularly pronounced in states enjoying a modicum of legitimate government and rule of law. Also, strict legal responsibilities and severe punishment should introduced by the state (Lunde, 2006). Lunde (2006) identifies such problems of weak state power and corruption which prevent police from control and elimination of organized crime. Lack of cooperation among law enforcement agencies increases organized crime probably by several orders of magnitude, especially in areas noted for systemic violence and corruption. In order to reduce organized crime on the international scale, all countries should introduce strict laws and support borderline areas (communities) and countries in war against organized crime. Sometimes the criminal leaders search for new opportunities is facilitated by poverty and hunger. In this case, the states should pay more attention to local communities and poor regions involved in drug production (Lunde, 2006). Psychologically as well as organizationally, this part of police work makes it possible to accept the suggestion that organized crime is worsening. It follows that one harboring a negative view of human nature would expect community life to degenerate. Many of the daily experiences of police work exacerbate this attitude: having to inform a murder victims family of the tragedy; investigating the brutal rape of a child; arresting some people over and over, just to see them freed. Police officers are not immune to the effects of incivility either. As they patrol an area and observe it succumbing to urban deterioration, or face teenagers who progressively defy their authority, they feel the effects of these visible signs and because of their orientation are inclined to view them as indicating that control is being lost. It follows that there would be a corresponding increase in crime. Growth ensures the systems strength as a community agency (Roth 2009). Since the volume of criminal activity exceeds the systems ability to control it, increasing the size of the system may improve its ability to fulfill its role. But the criminal-justice system is unique even in this situation. If through expansion the system detects more crimes, the rate of reported crime may increase, producing an image of more rather than less crime. To deal with this problem, agencies that receive additional funds for special programs to control crime manipulate statistics to indicate their success (Lyman and Potter 2006). Roth (2009) states that there is the tendency of the criminal-justice system to act in its own self-interest, like any large bureaucracy, police must ask whether the current public fiscal crisis is creating pressure on agencies to promote their survival. Inflation, by decreasing buying power, hurts criminal-justice agencies just as it hurts a familys budget. If the police department receives the same budget as the year before, adjustments will be necessary: salary increases will not be possible, some people may be laid off, and fewer supplies and equipment can be purchased. Such economic exigencies are painful for any organization; they are demoralizing and reduce the quality and quantity of service delivery (Lyman and Potter 2006). The best solution to control organized crime is to increase cooperation between police debarments of all countries around the globe and introduce capital punishment for all persons involved in organized crime groups. The justice system should fulfill an important symbolic function by establishing standards of conduct. It formally defines right and wrong for citizens and frees them from the responsibility of taking vengeance, thus preventing the escalation of feuds within communities. Formal controls are too far removed from the meaningful aspects of everyday life to influence our behavior directly. The attitudes of peer groups, families, and perhaps even neighbors are more influential on behavior. People do not want to embarrass themselves or disappoint those they respect (Roth 2009). To consider that they might get caught or even that they might be doing something wrong is too far removed from their self-perception to influence actions greatly (Abadinsky, 2009). Consequently, the system will never effectively control crime--not through deterrence, or incapacitation, or rehabilitation. Dangerous people should not be allowed to continue to hurt others who live in modern communities, and while the system is not always effective in apprehending and incarcerating them, it does what it can. Success could only be realized by establishing a police state in which strict surveillance of the citizenry is maintained and swift sanctions are executed with little regard for individual rights. The people would not tolerate this. Still, many people advocate that greater punishments be applied to a larger number of people. It seems paradoxical that one of the most punitive nations continues to have one of the greatest crime problems (Lyman and Potter 2006). The effectiveness of change in criminal justice procession can be measured by statistical comparison of historical data and new one received after new programs and political changes are introduced (Abadinsky, 2009). Arguments for changes in the criminal justice system are often made in the context of proposals for reducing crime, which is not a valid justification. In terms of the total crime rate, the number of new crimes committed by those few individuals released after successful appeals is insignificant. Even if the appellate right were to be totally abolished--a change that would pose a grave threat to individual freedom and human rights--no noticeable decrease in crime would result. If you are tempted to endorse a suggestion by a politician or a criminal-justice official for overhauling the structure of the appellate system, do not expect that it will result in improved crime control (Lunde, 2006). The proposal is simply another attempt to garner public support and to justify the systems activities. If government should engage in illegal behavior, it invites disrespect and promotes contempt for its authority. Illegal law enforcement activities alone may contribute to that attitude, but the failure of the courts to recognize and disallow those activities would make that conclusion by the public inevitable (Lyman and Potter 2006). Given the right conditions, people will forsake individual protections from an oppressive government. If they are sufficiently afraid of the criminal predator, self-preservation will dominate all other human responses. Self-preservation is a basic instinct that can destroy any sense of justice, reason, and compassion for others (Roth 2009). In sum, perhaps the greatest value of the exclusionary rule is that it sets a high standard for police practice and serves as a check on abuses of official authority. Whether the problem is fear that someone is trying to break into your house, a family fight that is getting out of hand, or someone about to get hurt in a barroom brawl, law enforcement agencies that employ professionally trained people can help with threatening events. Law enforcement efforts do not appear to be restricted as often as suggested, but neither have unlawful police practices been eliminated. As such, it defines judicial and government integrity. Control of organized crime requires cooperation between all criminal justice agencies and branches on the state and national level. References Abadinsky, H. (2009). Organized Crime. Wadsworth Publishing; 9 edition. Lunde, P. (2006). Organized Crime: An Inside Guide to the Worlds Most Successful Industry. DK ADULT. Lyman Michael D., Potter, Gary W. (2006). Organized Crime. Prentice Hall; 4 edition. Roth, M. (2009). Organized Crime. Allyn & Bacon; 1 edition. Read More