The Creation of the New National Crime Agency Organised Crime for Being Dealt with More Effectively - Research Paper Example

Task: Assessing the extent to which the creation of the new National Crime Agency will allow Organised Crime to be dealt withmore effectively” Organised crime refers to activities of highly structured groupings that are determined to engage in illegal activity, usually for monetary profit. In the United Kingdom alone, the police approximate that organised crime involves up to 38,000 persons operating in 6,000 different groups across the country1. The rising demand for illegal goods and services across the world, United Kingdom not exceptional, nurtures the materialization of more influential and centralized criminal syndicates. Such groups engage in activities deemed illegal yet still they succeed in compromising public morals and laws thus infiltrating the law and the economic progress of the nation. Notably, organized crimes exist on a continuum of weightiness and complexity of the activity at hand, for instance, drug trafficking2. Debatably, there is a more difficult task among the law abiding citizens who wish to become involved in organized crime. They cannot just approach persons they deem criminal like and seek attachment of an illegal association. It is worth noting that some crime groups are easily recognizable. This notwithstanding, the government has put up various measures to curb the flourishing of organised crime in the country. Particularly, is the formation of the National Crime Agency, which acts as the UK’s lead agency against prohibited criminal practices. The agency is tasked to investigate any kind of crimes across the country while also analysing the operations of the criminals and how the operations can be disrupted. In this paper, focus is on two illegal drugs namely; heroin and cocaine. According to the National Crime Agency, the use of illegal drugs impacts on the economic and social wellbeing of the country and categorizes drug trafficking as a major threat. In the UK, the prohibited drug market still remains exceptionally attractive to an array of organized criminals. The argument is that street prices in the UK record some of the highest in the whole of Europe and that they are enough to pay back costs of smuggling drugs into the UK3. The use of narcotics is very prominent in the UK. Evidently, it is leading many youths into the illegal practice since they are the most vulnerable section of the society. Some of them have family and cultural ties and this makes it easy for them to operate in the illegal trade. The two drugs: heroin and cocaine enter the country through specific trafficking routes. The immense majority of heroin enters the United Kingdom from the Afghan opium whose transit country is Pakistan4. Some of the Afghan opiates have a well-recognized familial and ethnic links to the UK making their operations even easier. Consequently, it is even more worrying that heroin entering the UK via Pakistan are likely to have been sent directly by parcel, sea container or air courier. Another notable gateway for the Afghan opiates is Iran who target mainly Eastern Europe and Turkey. The Netherlands also plays a key role in the organization for the importation of heroin into the United Kingdom. An annual estimation of heroin importation into the United Kingdom is 18-23 tones. On the other hand, cocaine’s annual importation amounts are estimated at 25-30 tones. A considerable amount of cocaine found in the UK is believed to have originated from Colombia or border countries of Venezuela and Ecuador. United Kingdom remains one of Europe’s largest and most profitable markets for cocaine. Such cocaine reaches the country via the Atlantic by ships arriving in Europe’s harbour ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp after which they are moved into the UK. Established crime groups existent in Spain and the Netherlands help facilitate the drug smuggling trade5. Over the years, various UK law enforcement bodies have put up measures to help curb narcotics the first of which resulted from circumstances of the First World War. The Dangerous Drugs Act passed in 1920 was the first of the social policies that were enacted to deal with the problem of narcotics in the country6. It became the foundation for which production, sale, possession and circulation of morphine, cocaine and heroin started to be regulated. By 1960s however, there was a general feeling that only two types of drug reliance existed Britain in form of alcohol and tobacco. During this time, the public were barely informed of the influences of other drugs like cocaine and heroin as fights were mainly focused on abuse of alcohol. In 1961, the Ministry of Health and Department of Health for Scotland constituted an Interdepartmental Committee for drug addiction. This made public the First Brain Report, which failed to accept the fact that there was an already escalating crisis of opiate addiction, instead, viewed the addiction to dangerous drugs as a small issue. Worse even is the fact that addiction was regarded as an expression of psychological disorder rather than an act of criminal behaviour. The committees’ second report of 1964 was termed “Drug Addiction 1965” which gave detailed recommendations rectifying the indulgence around the UK drug problem. The report accepted the fact that at that time addiction in the rest of UK was not viewed as a serious problem; nonetheless, it suggested that health departments should make certain appropriate arrangements for treatment of addicts7. Significantly, though, there has been a recognizable amount of work focusing on issues of avoidance, treatment and protecting families relating to drug use. For instance, in 2001 the government established The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse in order to advance the accessibility, capacity and effectiveness of treatment for drug misuse in Britain. This was an initiative intended to drop the harm caused by drug misuse to a persons’ wellbeing through suitable treatment8. The most significant change in today’s fight against drug problem in the UK is that there is the involvement of clear plans set out with positive goals and implementation strategies. The British method of drug control has always distinguished between prescription and policing in drug related cases. Since the Brain Report Committee reports, a clear difference has been drawn of two drug related problems: a problem related to the dependence or the addicted user while on the other hand is a problem of the unlawful whose use of the particular drug take place outside present medical regulation9. However, the present problem with the UK way of dealing with the drug problem is that it operates in a manner that it appeals to and fosters a bifurcation in thought. Worth mention is the argument that the dissimilarity between legitimate and illegitimate or the victim and the villain is extremely difficult to discover whether in theory, practice or even in court. Other legislations too have been categorical in the fight against drugs in the UK namely; Controlled Drugs Penalties Act 1985, Drug Trafficking Offenses Act 1986, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. With all these attempts by the UK government, the country still serves both as destination and as a transit location for drugs being smuggled into other areas of Europe. Most drugs that pass through here are from Latin American countries of Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador. The UK, therefore, has not achieved the status of being a hostile environment for organised crime since despite all the legislative and other government efforts that have been employed, there still continues to be drug trafficking activities in the country. Just like the UK, the United States of America also faces major problems when it comes to illegal trade in narcotics. The US experiences even a higher demand for drugs than the UK and these drugs are smuggled in the US by Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCOs)10. Since the government has put up measures to fight drug trafficking just like in any other nation, the traffickers have become excellent and are now changing their interrelationships and adjusting drug trafficking routes. The most dominant of the TCOs is the Mexican sect, which controls most of the overseas-based drug supply across the US southwest border11. They manage to dominate this illegal trade since they control most of the trafficking routes across this border coupled with their ability to produce, transport and distribute various drugs including cocaine and heroin. The TCO itself is comprised of various cartel groups, which do all the work of distribution and supply to all areas in the United States. In fact, the US government fears that threats posed by trafficking and misuse on illicit drugs may only increase in the near future instead of abating. Increased trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs in the US creates a big gap on the economic, physical and social wellbeing of the American society. Worse still, trends in the national level studies indicate that the demand for such drugs in the United States is rising especially among the young people. The United States recognizes drug trafficking as the most widespread and profitable organized crime operation accounting for nearly 40% of such activities and capable of generating a yearly income of 110 billion US Dollars. Colombian traffickers have predominantly maintained the cocaine industry since they are the largest and sophisticated. For instance, in 1984, Colombian authorities confiscated 16 metric tons of cocaine together with a significant amount of heroin. General aviation aircraft transports about two thirds of cocaine that enters the United States from South America12. Colombian trafficking groups currently export into the US 62 percent of narcotics they process on private airplanes13. There have been various efforts by governments whose citizens engage in the narcotic drug business. For instance, various intensified Colombian law enforcement measures have brought about significant impacts on drug trafficking activities. Such initiatives have prompted many traffickers to seek asylum in other South American countries. On the other hand, the United States has put much focus on the criminalization of drug use to help curb use of drugs among her citizens. The first federal drug policy on drugs that the US put in place was The Harrison Act of 1914. It restricted the production and sale of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and morphine. Notably, this was followed by several other laws and policies14. Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations have in the recent years engaged in violence related to trade in illicit drugs in a more brutal manner. They use tactics that include mass killings, torture and dismemberment and use of car bombs bringing a crisis in Mexico. Violence itself is an essential of the trade in illegal drugs as it is used by traffickers to resolve disputes. However, in Mexico this kind of violence is not connected to just resolving disputes instead it is directed towards the government and the media15. Notably, stability in Mexico plays a major role to the stability of the United States as well; hence, the intensity of the violence has been very critical to the US Congress. The two countries share a large border of nearly 2,000 miles and thus this presents a platform for trade. For more than a century now, drug trafficking organizations have operated in Mexico. Their operations can be described as a universal business with linkages managing the supply and distribution in various countries. Notably, the US state department’s report of 2013 of International Narcotics Control Strategy Report found that more than 90 percent of cocaine that is seized in the United States has transited the Central America and Mexican corridor16. The availability of cocaine in the United States began declining in 2009. This is partly attributed to increase in law enforcement by both Mexican and US governments. The rise in violence in Mexico therefore is an indication of strategy change by the drug traffickers since their main aim is to continue operating despite measures being put by governments to curb their actions17. One action that is baffling many in the US is the closure of the National Drug Intelligence Center. It is argued that the center was closed because various lawmakers in Washington fought to shut down the operations at NDIC terming them as a drain to the federal budget. This decision was made in November by the congress who voted to close the facility claiming it would save the taxpayers 34 million dollars18. Personally, I strongly disagree with this decision by the Obama Administration and believe this will have a major impact on the fight against trafficking of narcotics. The NDIC itself has played a very crucial role in the fight against drug trafficking and group violence in Pennsylvania and the nation as a whole. Closure of the facility therefore directly affects those who were employed there, the regional economy as well as compromising the efforts of local law enforcement. This was a major blow to the Johnston area where the NDIC was located and its closure means that the fight against drug trafficking may not be the same again19. The centre was at the helm of providing intelligence and making various recommendations to the government through reports, this is now non-existent meaning there is a big compromise to the fight against drug trafficking. The United Kingdom for example has had an industrious fight against narcotics. There have been the enactment of various laws as discussed above; the government also imposed a ban on the production and importation of heroin20. The narcotic drug control in the UK is based upon the premise that the health profession can be trusted to perform its obligations in good faith under rules and regulations governing drug use in the country. This notwithstanding, there has been few cases of irresponsible doctors who engage in unethical practices. Worth mentioning is the fact that the US has drawn a lot of interest in the manner by which drug use is controlled in western European countries especially the United Kingdom21. The newly created National Crime Agency more like the NDIC of the United States will be central in providing intelligence about the use of and trafficking of drugs into the UK. As enshrined in the role of the Agency, it will interrupt and bring to justice the serious and organised criminals who cause havoc in the UK. The agency has also categorically defined the boundaries of organised crimes and set out measures aimed at tackling it. The agency is well recognized and mandated by the constitution to carry out its operations thus making it legitimate enough to deal with organised crime issues including even recommending criminals for prosecution. It carries out five distinct functions namely: Border Policing Unit, Economic Crime Unit, Organised Crime Command, National Cyber Crime Unit, and the CEOP Command. All these functions are well elaborated and have specific themes that are followed to help fight narcotics in the UK. In conclusion, unlike other previous efforts set out by the UK government that involved bare law enactments, it can be argued that with the new Agency in place, the government will be able to fight organised crime effectively. The agency also publishes monthly e-Newsletter, which is aimed at informing its partners about the duties of the National Crime Agency. Therefore, the creation of this Agency is a positive measure towards the eradication of organized crimes and reduction (if possible, elimination) of narcotics use and addiction across the United Kingdom. Bibliography Aisha Gill. Crimes of Honour’ and Violence against Women in the UK’. (2008) 32(2), International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice., 243-263 Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. (New York: New Press, 2010) Bob Kindred. ‘Current Initiatives to Address Heritage Crime in the UK’. (2011) 17(2), Journal of Architectural Conservation., 43-58 Bobby Duffy, Rhonda Wake, Tamara Burrows & Pamela Bremner. ‘Closing the gaps – crime and public perceptions’ (2008) 22(2) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology., pages 17-44 Clement Guitton. ‘Cyber insecurity as a national threat: overreaction from Germany, France and the UK?’ (2013) (22) 1, March European Security, 21-35 Dawn E. Stephen. ‘Time to stop twisting the knife: a critical commentary on the rights and wrongs of criminal justice responses to problem youth in the UK’. (2009) (31)2 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law. 193-206 Glen M. Segell. ‘Reform and Transformation: The UKs Serious Organized Crime Agency’. International. (2007) 20 (2), Journal of Intelligence and Counter Intelligence. 217-239 Great Britain Serious and Organised Crime Strategy. (London: Stationery Office, 2013) Great Britain The Government Response to the Fourteenth Report of the Home Affairs Committee Session 2010-12 Hc 939: New Landscape of Policing. (London: Stationery Office, 2011) Great Britain. The Government Response to the Ninth Report from the Home Affairs Committee Session 2012-13 Hc 184: Drugs : Breaking the Cycle. (London: Stationery Office, 2013) GreatBritain. The National Crime Agency: A Plan for the Creation of a National Crime-Fighting Capability. (London: TSO, 2011) Ian Bryan & Michael Salter. ‘War crimes prosecutors and intelligence agencies: the case for assessing their collaboration’. 2001 (16)3 Intelligence and National Security. 93-120 Jemell Geraghty. Drug policy, intravenous drug use, and heroin addiction in the UK. (2011) (20) 14. British Journal of Nursing. 878-884 Johnson, S. D., Sidebottom, A., & Thorpe, A. (2008). Bicycle Theft. Problem-oriented Guides for Police Series No. 52. US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Mike Collison. ‘Punishing drugs: Criminal Justice and Drug Use’. (1993) 33(3). Brit. J. Criminol. Summer National crime agency (NCA) 2014. National Strategic Assessment of Serious and Organised Crime 2014 Ryder, Nicholas. Financial Crime in the 21st Century: Law and Policy. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub, 2011) W. A. Tupman. Cross‐national criminal databases: The ongoing search for safeguards. (1995) 4(3) International Journal of the Economics of Business., 261-275 Walker, Clive, of B. Carlile, Ken McDonald, and David Omand. Terrorism and the Law. ( Oxford University Press, 2011) Ward, Richard, Amanda Wragg, and R J. Walker. Walker & Walkers English Legal System. ( Oxford University Press, 2011) Read More