Smuggling Drugs as Organized Crime in the US - Research Paper Example

Smuggling Drugs as Organized Crime in the US Introduction Drug trafficking in the US as organized crime, is currently responsible for most arrests and incarcerations. According to Ann Carson (2014), from 2001 to 2013, more than fifty percent of prisoners in federal facilities serving more than a year were from drug related convictions. At the State level, 16 percent of state prison populace was of drug related offences with 25 percent of this population being female prisoners incarcerated on drug offences. These statistics show the seriousness of the illegal drug trade, further painting a picture of its impact on law enforcement, criminal justice system and the American prison system. This paper will take the following five dimensions in its attempt to explore drug smuggling as organized crime in the United States: It will define the concept of drug smuggling as organized crime and its variations; discus the extent of this crime in the US; explain the relevant theories and use these theories to further understand drug smuggling as organized crime; identify the causes of the drug trade and finally, identify the appropriate prevention policies on the issue of drug smuggling. Definition of drug smuggling as organized crime Drug smuggling/trafficking is the sale, transportation and illegal importation of illegal substances that include but are not restricted to; cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamines. Convictions for this offence varies from 3-5 years to life in prison depending on the amount of drugs involved, type, area of distribution and target group of the population. Distribution is a more serious offence that drug possession making it a felony (Bauder, 2008). On the grounds of the amount of drugs possessed, law enforcement officers can choose to charge an offender with trafficking charges if they are found in possession of the said drugs. Drug Smuggling Statistics According to Bagley (2012), there is an argument among Latin America political leaders that were it not for the over the top demand for illegal drugs in the US, then such large quantities would not be produced in the southern countries. Bagley estimates the value of illegal drugs in the US at $150 billion annually with $37billion going to cocaine alone. He adds in his article that over the last 10 years, drug trade has grown beyond the US international markets with Europe’s number of addicts currently accounting for 30 percent of global drug uses at 4.75 million people. Routine Activity Theory Developed by Felson and Cohen, this theory looks into the possible causes of a crime. Central to this theory is the concept of effective controls, the lack of which motivates offenders to prey on striking targets. According to this theory, for a crime to occur, a motivated offender must share a location with his target, so for crimes that involve property, the target becomes an object while personal crimes target individuals. If the target does not share a location with the motivated offender, then a crime is not likely to occur. So is the case when controllers whose presence avert crime, but if the said controllers are absent or around but powerless, crime will most likely be committed. There are three converging pillars to the theory: People in the life of offenders, targets and places. For juvenile potential offenders, the people involved can be relatives, siblings, parents and other persons of similar placements while in the case of adults, friends, prison partners and children in some instances, make up those involved. These people are referred to as “handlers” in routine activity theory and their absence, weakness or compromise, create room for crime to occur. The second pillar that is victims or targets is protected from crime by guardians. They include the police, security officers, friends and other individuals present at the location of the attractive target. A target with a vigilant guardian is likes to avoid an attack, but if the guardian is weak, absent or compromised, then little protection is provided and an attack can easily take place. The third and final dimension to this triangle is the place. Owners of a location have the mandate to control access to such places and their agents, also known as place managers, who could be employees, have the power to administer these controls. Presence of effective place managers averts crimes and their absence, weakness or corruption allows crime to thrive. All of the people described in routine activity theory employ tools to achieve the intended crime control objectives. Offenders without the proper tools are likely to be arrested by handlers and less likely to successfully enter unauthorized areas, conquer victim and their guardians. If guardians use light to improve surveillance, for example, offenders will be kept away. Having distinctive marks on portable property, fencing, signs and other tools are some of the ways managers can scare off offenders. If the right tools are used, victims, their handlers and property managers have a greater chance of keeping crimes away from them. In equal magnitude; offenders must use task specific tools to successful commit a crime, so a bugler cannot the same tools as a robber. The problem triangle below depicts the complex relationship between actors, places and tools. From the triangle, chances of a crime are increased when an offender shares a location with the target in the absence of a strong controller. In the presence of multiple controllers however, chances of a crime occurring are immensely reduces. In similar manner, efficiency of the actors is in part, dependant on the available tools, so any variation in elements of this model with changes the possibility of a crime. Source: Brantingham, Patricia L. and Paul J. Brantingham (1981) There is a random distribution of striking targets, feeble handlers, poor management and ineffective guardians across locations, so offenders do not just roam all over the place. They have predictable behavior patterns that lead them away from effective handlers to locations with attractive targets. Potential victims on the other hand, also follow schedules that take them away from effective guardians into areas with poor management for the reported crimes to occur. The crimes we see today are, therefore, a product of the routines of both offenders and victims that present crime opportunities. Routine activity theory has a list of suggestions on how the stated problems can be prevented using questions in a guide with responses gathered around the elements in the above triangle. With questions from the guide on the people involved- offenders, handlers, managers, etc, solutions on crime preventions are generated. Issues of tools used by offenders for different crime scenarios are identifies, for example, burglaries in a single unit residences are different from those in apartment complexes. With the response from the guide, proper preventative strategy can be adopted to address each of the crime situations. Even with the specific nature of responses in this theory, there are always multiple answers to one problem which allows solvers to choose the best from the available options. So the available approaches have several back up options that can be adopted should one fail. The following examples explain how this theory is employed in solving crime problems. Knowledge of the theory’s basics helps in guiding the solution with more flexibility but it’s also possible to come up with proper responses even without in-depth understanding of the theory. An example is a scenario where a potential solution is proposed, to determine if that solution is appropriate; the problem solver comes up with 58 answers that are close to the proposed solution. According to Barlow and Kauzlarich (2010), questions that best describe answers to the problem under this theory are looked into and consistent answers adopted. It is, therefore, important to be familiar with the routine activity theory to produce a more adaptable solution guide. The foundation of this theory is that crime poverty and other social issues like unemployment are not a motivation for crime and even with a booming economy, crime increases in equal measure. Felson and Cohen hold the opinion that an increase in a society’s success offers Relevance of the Theory to “Smuggling of Drugs as Organized Crime in the United States” According to the UN report on drug trafficking in the US under UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the North American drug market is supplied by Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia and Central America. The transportation of these huge quantities of Cocaine and heroin is by sea then through land into the Unites States and Canada. The process of transporting these drugs that involve movement from countries further south through Mexico into North America is facilitated by corrupt or weak guardians like the police forces in these nations, according to Routine Activity Theory. Recent BBC report that documented the arrest of former top law enforcement officer in Bolivia, General Oscar Nina, who was the country’s top cop between 2010 and 2011, is evidence of how the drug smuggling crime has thrived because of corrupt guardians (bbc.com, 2015). Past reports by the BBC have contained numerous arrests in Mexico, among leading cartels like Zetas’ Omar Trevino Morales, who was recently extradited to the US to face smuggling changes and many others (bbc.com, 2014). These activities confirm the flow of drugs from southern America through Mexico as the last pit stop into the United States Source: Congressional Research Service, 2010 Offenders in drug smuggling are far more sophisticated than any other crime with the involvement of politicians, scholars and powerful mainstream businessmen. This makes their tools extremely complex and according to Fukumi, (2008), drug cartels in South America use diverse tools to facilitate their trafficking crimes. Among the tools used by offenders are sub-marines, complex tunnels into the United States and concealed trucks. Since offenders have elaborate distribution networks in the United States and an organized work force in the form of criminal gangs, perpetrating drug trafficking crimes are much easier once the substances reach American shores. According to Bunck & Fowler (2012), with local street drug traffickers having control of place, since they manage end user location through their gang activities, American law enforcement officers (guardians), have an uphill task at protecting victims. The reason for this difficulty is the scale of this crime where every street is a potential location for offenders to meet victims and sell them the harmful substances. Routine Activity theory, therefore, provides questions guideline by examining the three pillars for a robust solution to the drug trafficking menace in the US. The three groups of people involved; guardians, handlers and managers, must use corresponding tools given the complex nature of this crime. Within American borders, law enforcement officers from border patrol, highway officers to the DEA have matched offenders’ technological capabilities with state-of- the- art surveillance gear helps in detecting cross-border movements. In the list of guardians is the American congress that has over the years come up with strict legislation aimed at facilitating law enforcement officers in their fight against drug trafficking. One such piece of legislation is the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, a creation of congress’ 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act. This program is aimed at the following core objectives against drug trafficking in the US: To facilitate collaboration among federal and local law enforcers such that information is shared and activities against drug trafficking coordinated jointly Availing useful intelligence so that law enforcement agencies can better design enforcement strategies Support collaborated enforcement strategies with the resources at hand such that illegal supply of drugs is reduced within the designated areas. Source: www.dea.gov For an area to be classified as a HIDTA, it must be a known center for the product or import of illegal drugs; local and State resources must have been set aside to handle drug smuggling challenges at the said location; the area must have seen drug related activities that have the potential of harming the rest of America and finally; there must be need for extra allocation of federal resources to meet the local drug related challenges (Eck, 1994). The Routine Activity Theory, therefore, opens debate on the best solution to a crime situation and programs like the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) were created after looking at the constituent elements of this theory. With the assumption that if one is presented with an opportunity to commit a crime like smuggling drugs, they are likely to take such a chance given the enormous financial returns. The only deterrent is presence of guardians, like law enforcement officer, the absence of which such crime can go unabated. The recent advancement in offender tools among South American and US based traffickers is informed by the complexity of guardian tools, as such, an alteration in one of the three pillars under this theory has immense effect on crime levels and corresponding strategies. Criminal justice system’s proper response to drug smuggling offenses/offenders With the source of illegal drugs in foreign lands south of the United States, the American criminal justice system has adopted a new strategy that involves extradition of traffickers to face the American courts. The following is a detailed summary of the systems apposite response to the smuggling menace: Extraditing major smugglers to the US: America has signed extradition treaties with most countries around the world, South American nations included, for the expatriation of criminals to the US to face the country’s justice system (Zanotti & Rotman, 2006). This response has been significant in fighting smuggling of illegal drugs from the source. From Colombia’s “Pablo Escobar”, Mexico’s “Guzman” to Jamaica’s “Dudus Coke”, the long hand of the American justice system has reached far and wide to clean American streets of illegal drugs. Given the weak and corrupt nature of judicial systems in countries that produce these illegal drugs, the US system has taken it upon itself to exploit these treaties and execute injustice on its citizens (Marcy, 2010). When leaders of criminal gangs in supplier countries are arrested and brought to stand trial in the US, their organizations are usually weakened and even though some replacement always takes their spot, that process takes time. Most drug lords in South America and the Caribbean have elaborate networks with their respective governments. This makes it very difficult to have them prosecuted by their justice systems and only in the US can they face justice for drug smuggling crimes (Crandall, 2002). Even though extradition has not been very successful in reducing the flow of drugs into the US, it has temporarily dented the activities of smugglers. Protecting American borders through enhanced surveillance: Drugs enter America from supplier countries through land, sea and air. Since the criminal justice system begins its work from arrests, border patrols have been enhanced to deal with the changing dynamics of the drug trade, which has quickly improved and become very innovative. Unmanned state-of-the-art surveillance gears, high steel walls along America’s border with Mexico are some of the tools used to deter the flow of drugs. America has presently invested in proper training of border patrol officers to handle smugglers and ensure they face justice. The American criminal justice system takes effect from arrests, having competent arresting officers at the border is pivotal to the overall success of the system. Border patrol officers today, are extremely capable in gathering evidence that will ensure successful prosecution of drug traffickers. According to the www.whitehouse.gov, there are presently 3000 additional border patrol agents along the Mexican boundary with unmanned aircraft and ground surveillance at an all time high. These efforts, according to white house figures have halved illegal border crossings in the last six years. Arresting charging and incarcerating local traffickers in American cities: Smugglers from supplier nations rely on local networks to distribute their illegal substances. To clean American streets of these drugs, law enforcement agencies have stepped up surveillance and other operations aimed at putting dealers behind bars. Such action is responsible for the high number of drug related offenders currently incarcerated in the American prison system. Below is an extract from the Federal Bureau of Prisons showing the various categories of offenders, with Drug offenses taking lead among the prison population. Chart Label Offense # of Inmates % of Inmates a Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement 735 0.4% b Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses 7,907 4.0% c Continuing Criminal Enterprise 456 0.2% d Courts or Corrections 806 0.4% e Drug Offenses 96,324 48.7% f Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 12,220 6.2% g Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses 5,723 2.9% h Immigration 19,405 9.8% i Miscellaneous 1,536 0.8% j National Security 75 0.0% k Robbery 7,329 3.7% l Sex Offenses 13,562 6.9% m Weapons, Explosives, Arson 31,749 16.0% Source: www.bop.gov (2015) Treatment of incarcerated drug end-users: The department of justice (DOJ) according to the National Institute of Drug Abuse has come up with a treatment program in all its correctional facilities. Past research by the DOJ indicates that 70 percent of state and 64 percent of Federal inmates have a history of drug use before their incarceration. The same study also revealed that for every four violent offenders, one committed such an offence under the influence of drugs. Federal data indicate that the greater part, 99.8 percent of Federal inmates to be precise, received sentences for drug smuggling (www.drugabuse.gov, 2014). This underscores the need to treat these inmates and avoid a vicious cycle of drug offences that has huge costs on the criminal justice system. Rehabilitation programs within American prisons are aimed at interrupting the cycle of offenders with drug problems. Absorbing released prisoners into the society: The probation system by the DOJ is aimed at integrating offenders in the society. During the period of probation, ex-convicts are taught on being responsible citizens as a transitional measure into their integration. Policy based on Routine Activity Theory to reduce drug trafficking into the US Lesser penalties for drug users and extremely harsh punishment for large scale importers: The American criminal justice system has not had a clear parallel between drug users and major smugglers. Users with relatively smaller quantities of illegal drugs have often received very harsh jail sentences, almost in equal measure to major drug lords. From my understanding of Routine Activity Theory, users are the victims in the drug smuggling cycle, with the offenders being the smugglers (Barlow and Decker, 2010). Having victims suffer long term prison sentences is an indication of failure in the justice system. From the Routine Activity Theory triangle, there are better results in reducing crime by altering one of the pillars, in this case, focusing on the offenders (smugglers) while availing help to the victims (end-users) (Barlow and Kauzlarich, 2010). If smugglers were to be contained, fewer drugs will be available to addicts in the street and only then can the war of drugs be won. Dealing with the symptoms as is the current scenario where sick addicts are incarcerated and major importers left to roam free cannot serve to help the war on drug smuggling. In summary, the proposed policy shifts focus from end-user to the source. The resources currently used in fighting drugs trafficking in American streets should, therefore, be deployed to South America in funding operations aimed at ensuring the drugs do not enter America. If that happens, then supply will be cut and current addicts rehabilitated. Even with the complexity and economic consequences of this policy to supplier nations, it appears to be the best option if the American criminal justice system is serious about winning the war on drugs. References Ann, Carson E. (2014): Prisoners In 2013. Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sept. 2014, NCJ247282. Federal data: p. 16; state data: p. 15. Bagley, B. (2012). Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime in The Americas: Major Trends In The Twenty-First Century. Woodrow Wilson Center Update On The Americas. Retrieved March 5, 2015 Bauder, J. (2008). Drug trafficking. New York: Greenhaven Press BBC News,. Bolivia Ex-Drug Czar Nina Arrested. N.p., 2015. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. Brantingham, Patricia L. and Paul J. Brantingham (1981): “Notes on the Geometry of Crime.” In Environmental Criminology, Beverly Hills: Sage Bunck, J., & Fowler, M. (2012). Bribes, bullets, and intimidation: Drug trafficking and the law in Central America. Crandall, R. (2002). Driven by drugs: U.S. policy toward Colombia. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Eck, John E. (1994). Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park Fukumi, S. (2008). Cocaine trafficking in Latin America: EU and US policy responses. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate. http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/criminal-justice/drug-addiction-treatment-in-criminal-justice-system http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/border-security Hugh D. Barlow and David Kauzlarich (2010). Explaining crime: Primer in criminological theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman& Littlefield. ISBN: 978-0-7425-6510-4 Hugh D. Barlow and Scott H. Decker (Eds.) (2010). Criminology and public policy: Putting theory to work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. ISBN: 978-1-4399-0007- Marcy, W. (2010). The politics of cocaine how U.S. foreign policy has created a thriving drug industry in Central and South America. Chicago, Ill.: Lawrence Hill Books Zanotti, I., & Rotman, E. (2006). Extradition in multilateral treaties and conventions. Leiden [u.a.: Nijhoff. Read More