Reflections on Organized Crime and Finding Community-Level Resolutions - Essay Example

? Reflections on organized crime and finding community-level resolutions 30 September Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Part One: Reflection 3 The Nature and Extent of Organized Crime 3 Explaining Organized Crime 4 The Development of Organized Crime in the United States 5 Typologies of Organized Crime 6 Organized Crime Activities 7 Organized Crime Statutes and Law Enforcement 8 Part Two: Organized Crime and Community Responses 9 Community Factors 10 Community and Organized Crime 11 Production-distribution-consumptions 11 Socialization 12 Social control 12 Social participation and mutual support 12 Community Responses 13 Production-distribution-consumption 13 Socialization 14 Social control 14 Social participation and mutual support 15 Conclusions 15 References 16 Introduction In the report “Organized Crime in the United States: Trends and Issues for Congress,” Finklea (2010) asserted the threat of organized crime: “Organized crime threatens the economy, national security, and other interests of the United States. Particularly in the past several decades, organized crime has been evolving and taking on an increasingly transnational nature” (p.1). Because of the effects and growing nature of organized crime, the society and the government must invest more time and energy in understanding and fighting it. This course allowed this student to study and comprehend the major topics that address the various aspects of organized criminal gangs. This paper presents reflections and recommendations. Reflecting on these topics reinforces learning and pushes critical thinking on the side of the students. A closer examination of community responses to organized crime will also be conducted. Thus, this paper offers a closer analysis of organized crime in the United States. It also provides recommendations on how the community can be empowered to help fight organized crime. Part One: Reflection The Nature and Extent of Organized Crime Organized crime is like a human being because it is flexible, responsive, and adaptive to its changing environment. It is not a surprise then that organized crime has evolved and improved, since it started from the pirates of the colonial period (Mallory, 2012, p.17). Organized crime is like any organization; it is made of people who can and will evolve, depending on their needs and the opportunities and threats in the environment. I am concerned of this humanity, or more like inhumanity, behind organized crime. It suggests that organized crime will always exist. This is based on the assumption that human beings do not always choose to be good, and that there are sociological factors that contribute to the development of organized crime. It shows the challenges of battling organized crime at individual and diverse levels of society. Does this mean that the government and communities are wasting their efforts in fighting organized crime? I do not have this pessimistic point of view. I may think that some people are evil, in such a way that they find it hard, or even wrong to act morally. In general, however, people are good. Many of them are tainted, nevertheless, because of their family backgrounds and social environments that influenced or trained them to fraternize with criminal elements. I truly believe that numerous of these people can still be “turned around.” However, they must acknowledge and accept internal changes. They must be willing to change themselves. Otherwise, they will remain criminals because of their deviant attitudes and behaviors. Hence, the extent of organized crime ends with the capacity of criminals to change and the capacity of people to avoid and reject organized crime as an alternative way of life. Explaining Organized Crime Explaining organized crime as a phenomenon and as a process involves analyzing its multifaceted nature. As a phenomenon, it means that organized crime has elements that are similar to formal and legal organizations. Organized crime tends to have the following features: structure, restricted membership, continuity, violence or the threat of violence, illegal enterprises, legitimate business penetration, corruption, and lack of ideology (Finklea, 2010, p.1). To explain it in these terms means to understand what it means to its members and leaders. I believe that explaining organized crime is important because we are also analyzing it from the viewpoint of the criminals. If they think that they are part of a durable and sustainable system, they will believe in it and they will protect it with their lives. Explaining organized crime reveals the process of motivation that works for criminal members. Organized crime should also be explained as a process because it can help the state find its weaknesses and ways on how it can be stunted. Organized crime starts somewhere and develops into something that is organized enough to be sustained in the long run. I think that the process of organized crime helps law enforcement and policymakers determine points of intervention. For instance, they can prevent organized crime from starting in new cities, if they knew how and why they started. Moreover, they can think of different kinds of solutions for existing organized crimes. I believe that organized crime can be broken down into its elements, phases, and relations, so that they can be understood and broken down too as an organization. To know what they are and how they function and last is to know their weaknesses. It is hard to explain organized crime, nevertheless, because of the threats of violence that come from them and its connection to corruption. Injecting spies or agents inside these organizations is risky and might reduce the effectiveness of these strategies in emergency situations. I think it is best to know more about these organized crimes through other sociological approaches, before any kind of solution is prepared. The Development of Organized Crime in the United States The development of organized crime in the United States reflects the propensity of people to find organizations that reflect their identities and support their life goals. Organized crime in the U.S. began with legitimate groups with unethical attitudes and behaviors, and which have transformed into operating illicit transactions. Colonial pirates love the sea and adventure. They may also have violent predispositions. Their piracy binds the members into a group with common interests (Mallory, 2012, p.17). Robber barons are considered as organized criminal leaders because they monopolized the American economy through violence and corruption (Mallory, 2012, p.18; Abadinsky, 2010, p.41). Modern organized criminals are bandits, addicts, and disadvantaged people with a mission. They have similar interests also, such as having greater power and more money. For me, these are like ordinary groups, only with bad attitudes and behaviors. My question is: Are they drawn to organized crime because of their intrinsic identities or does organized crime and society develop criminal identities? The answer to this question can influence how the government should fight organized crime. Organized crime is more structured and networked than ever. Now, traditional criminals are working across states and borders. Some criminal organizations have become or are involved with terrorism (Stohl, 2008). Because of such interrelations, organized crime is currently more dangerous than ever. When ideology is mixed with organized crime, their members may become more prepared to kill innocent civilians, even without money involved. This can increase the level and prevalence of violence among organized crime elements. I think that this is one of the aspects of organized crime that must be cut off immediately. The government should find ways that will disentangle organized criminals from terrorists and prevent future alliances. Typologies of Organized Crime The classification of organized crime has followed a racial profiling approach, which is both simple and harmful. It is simple because it will be easier to categorize them. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2012), organized crime in the U.S. can be divided according to dominant races or ethnicities. They are the following: Russian mobsters who fled to the U.S. in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse; Chinese tongs, Japanese Boryokudan, and other Asian crime rings; the Italian Cosa Nostra organizations; Balkan groups with links to Hungary and Romania; Middle Eastern groups with traditional criminal or terrorist links; groups from African countries, like Nigeria that engage in drug trafficking and financial scams; and biker gangs. A profile like this makes it easy to “see” who the criminals are. This racial profiling is harmful, however, because race is not the only or the most defining aspect of organized crime. Overlooking other elements, such as family connections and neighborhood aspects, can prevent the authorities from fully understanding how they work. And knowing how they work is critical in knowing how to stop them. The different typologies of organized crime suggest that organized crime is not exclusive to one race. For me, this is good and bad. It is good because racism does not exist in organized crime. We cannot say that only blacks or Russians can be organized crime members. People who can and will join other criminals will do so, whatever race they may be. Still, the involvement of different races in organized crime indicates the pervasiveness of organized crime. It attracts diverse races, which shows that there is something in it that makes it a magnet for some people. Understanding what organized crimes offers to its members can lead authorities to comprehend what they can offer too, so that they can steer people away from organized crime. Organized Crime Activities Organized crime has an evolving nature, but has recently focused on several kinds of criminal activities that require an organizational framework. For instance, human trafficking cannot be done by one person alone. He/she needs an organization to help him/her with the entire process of recruiting or kidnapping these people and transporting them across countries. It is interesting how a legal framework with legal resources and systems can be used to facilitate organized crime. It seems that some people use their ingenuity for the wrong purposes. Nonetheless, as an organization, it has its weaknesses. If businesses have SWOT analysis to understand the internal and external conditions of legal firms, I think the authorities can also use SWOT analysis to expose the weaknesses of these organized criminal rings. They can also use the threats of their environment to weaken these criminal organizations. Hence, organizational theories may shed light on how to destroy these criminal syndicates. Criminals are now using technology to expand their illicit business operations and to evade the detection and capture of authorities (Barker & Human, 2009, p.1). Indeed, criminals are evolving into technocrats too. They update their systems and tools to become more efficient and effective in conducting their affairs. Moreover, they can also use technology to “clean” their illicit earnings. I think the marvels of technology present entirely new challenges to law enforcement and statutes. With new technologies, there is a need for additional laws to combat organized crimes at this level. Law enforcement needs knowledge and skills upgrade too to deal with this aspect of organized crime. As organized crime becomes more high-tech, the state must move two steps forward with better technology and skills. This means higher costs for fighting organized crime, but I believe it is worth it, unless we want a worst scenario case, where criminal hackers have taken over our financial systems through modern technology. Organized Crime Statutes and Law Enforcement I consider that the existing crime statutes can be effectively used to combat crime, but the U.S. still needs a more centralized legal framework. Several statutes have been signed to enhance the powers of the justice and law enforcement agencies in detecting criminal activities and punishing organized criminal leaders, members, and supporters. Some of them are US Code - Section 371, or the Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, RICO or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and the Consumer Credit Protection Act. These laws are made to deal with specific elements of criminal activities. For instance, the Consumer Credit Protection Act criminalizes loansharking activities of criminals. RICO is more comprehensive because it targets offenders working at the top levels of various kinds of criminal organizations. But is there a statute that binds and interconnects all these statutes? I think that we are fragmenting our approach to organized crime if we do not have a centralized legal framework for it. There should be an agency or lawmaking body that is in charge of synchronizing these laws and finding gaps, so that additional laws can be made. They should also take note of the trends in organized crime and respond to that through finding applicable laws or making new ones. One of the worst things that can happen is not having updated laws that can deal with modern organized criminal activities. Aside from integrating and upgrading laws, the law enforcement against organized crime requires a more systematic framework with a central agency. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the main agency responsible for combating organized crime. It has formed or facilitated the formulation of Organized Crime Task Forces that focus on different typologies and levels of criminal activities. Nevertheless, there is no preexisting agency that is centrally tasked with combatting organized crime in a systematic manner. I believe that this central agency is important because it will lead this fight against organized crime. It will be responsible for the coordination of domestic and international efforts. It will also ensure that intelligence databases are formed to facilitate intelligence gathering and sharing. It will offer clear reporting, documenting, and sharing procedures that will rationalize the approach to organized crime and maximize limited resources. Thus, a national approach to combating organized crime is seriously lacking and must be present to systematically dismantle criminal syndicates. Part Two: Organized Crime and Community Responses I wanted to learn more about organized crime and community responses because of my belief that the community is a decisive battlefield in eradicating organized crime. When I used “organized crime” and “community” as subjects for database searches, I came up with only one relevant accessible entry. This is the article from Potter and Cox (1990), “A Community Paradigm of Organized Crime.” This does not mean that there are no community efforts that fight organized crime. It suggests, however, the lack of studies on how community responses can be used to eliminate organized crime. I am interested in this topic because I believe that communities can be empowered to resolve organized crime. At the same time, if poverty and marginalization are factors that contribute to the development of organized crimes, then the community can also offer resolutions to its social and economic problems, which in turn, will help resolve organized crime. Society should share the same concern because community development is a powerful tool for resolving diverse socio-economic and political problems. The community, in my opinion, can use its resources and strengths to handle community problems. With support from the government and/or non-profit organizations, communities can be trained to be at the forefront of battling organized crime. Community Factors Before this paper discusses community factors, it will be helpful to define a community first. Warren (1973, p.9) provides a functional and substantive approach to defining a community. For him, a community is “that combination of social units and systems which perform the major social functions having locality relevance” (as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.3). This definition realizes that communities are organized according to social activities, and not only by their geographic or legal boundaries (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.3). In addition, it views “locality relevance” elements of community, which can refer to access points, such as those social activities and functions that help people conduct their everyday activities (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.3). Warren (1973) provides five primary community functions that possess locality relevance: “1) production-distribution-consumptions; 2) socialization; 3) social control; 4) social participation; and 5) mutual support” (as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.3). The function of production-distribution-consumptions pertains to participation of the community in the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services for daily needs and wants (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.4). Providing these goods and services results to financial compensation. In addition, products and services have local availability. They compose the industries that serve as the economic sphere of community living. The second role of a community is socialization, which is “the process by which society or one of its constituent units transmits prevailing knowledge, social values and behavioral patterns to its individual members” (Warren, 1973, p.10 as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.8). Socialization occurs beyond families and includes community relationships. Social control is defined as “the process of influencing member behavior toward conformity with norms” (Warren, 1973, p.11 as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.11). These controls are enforced inside, individually, or externally by a variety of groups or institutions in a person’s environment (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.11). Social participation and mutual support are interlocking community functions. Relationships among residents generally happen in the context of mutual interests and physical closeness (Sealey, Sim, & Loosely, 1956 as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Levels of intimacy and socio-economic patterns affect social participation (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Mutual support pertains to the help given during times of crises, when individual and family needs are not fulfilled by the “usual pattern of social behavior” (Warren, 1973, p.196 as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Community and Organized Crime Organized crime operates by providing similar community functions. It offers something that the community cannot provide to all its members. Production-distribution-consumptions Organized crime serves the illegal side of production-distribution-consumptions in communities. They profit from operating at the “void” of community economics (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.3). For example, if consumers demand drugs or illegal laborers, organized crime will provide them. Furthermore, organized crime uses legal business activities in the communities to sell their goods and services, or to hide their revenues (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.4). In addition, organized crime's racketeering services offer businesses with forceful tools for harassing competitors or attaining favorable employee contracts (Chambliss, 1978 as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.4). Socialization Criminals in social networks are believed to be products of social forces. Curry and Mongrain (2009) argued that criminal leaders and recruiters find it efficient to recruit their members and train them for criminal activities (p.9). Barker (2011) stressed that some biker clubs turn into criminal organizations that actively recruit and train felons (p.208). These members come from teens or adults that have no other social capital to attain socio-economic goals, or might simply have internal desires for criminality. The social network approach asserts that a lack of access to legitimate means of self-improvement and success compels some people to perform criminal acts (Albanese, 2011, p.89). Once inside criminal networks, these novice people learn criminal behavior from experts (Albanese, 2011, p.89). Sociologists also acknowledge the role of local political corruption in promoting organized crime. These criminals bribe the police and/or officials to gain protection for their illegal business activities (Lombardo, 2010, p.266). Social control Because organized crime group's illegal activities are relatively constant, accommodations through the use of formal social control entities are important. Hills (1969) contended that a common feature of all organized crime is its conspiracy with enforcement and political structures (as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.11). This symbiosis between illicit behaviors and political structures has been noted by plentiful studies, such as Harring (1983) in Buffalo, Haller (1972) in Chicago, and Albini (1971) in Detroit (all these studies are cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.11). Social participation and mutual support Organized crime groups arise from its social participation in a community. Community members belong to social networks, “the chains of persons with whom a given person is in contact” (Boissevain, 1974 as cited in Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Social networks include personal relationships, but become more intimate as associates become friends (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Criminal peers are interested in and have the talents that allow them to thrive in criminal environments (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Vital organized crime figures reside in central points in social participation networks that intersect private and public sector organizations and legal and illegal businesses (Potter & Cox, 1990, p.14). Community Responses Given these aspects of the community that affect organized crime, I propose that these similar aspects can be used to prevent organized crime from developing or to help resolve problems with organized crime. Production-distribution-consumption If organized crime uses the production-distribution-consumption processes of legal businesses, these enterprises can be killed either through legalizing illicit products and services (i.e. marijuana and prostitution), or offering substitute legal products and services. The main idea is that the community supplants the operations of organized crime by offering legal alternatives. They can take away the business of organized crime by competing with them. As for the side of law enforcement, they should identify these points in the production-distribution-consumption processes that criminal enterprises use, so that they can hamper their operations. A combination of law enforcement and legal businesses can usurp the economic importance of organized crime to communities. Economic opportunities must also be enhanced at community levels to dilute the economic attraction of organized crime. Minority groups and other members of the poor social classes are vulnerable to organized crime. The community should work together in providing livelihood to these people. Businesses should provide employment that can sustain these at-risk groups. The local government can also provide other livelihood opportunities or training. If these educational and employment opportunities are present, disadvantaged sectors may be less attracted to organized crime. Socialization Many organized crimes recruit the youth and other jobless people, as well as people with at-risk personality traits. These are organizations that offer people a place “to belong,” and an opportunity to “find themselves” and develop their identities. Communities should offer similar legal organizations. They should help the youth and other at-risk people create legal organizations that can help them express themselves and find people with similar interests. These are organizations that should enhance their social, economic, and political conditions. The main point is that if these social spaces are available, these people can find social acceptance and means of resolving identity problems and issues, without having to resort to criminal organizations. Social control How about those people who have traits or predisposition to violence and doing illegal activities? Social controls can be applied through usual statutes and law enforcement activities. They should be applied consistently, regardless of race, religion, gender, age, and social status. This way, people realize that legal social controls make a life of criminality undesirable. After all, inside the hood, they lose their civil rights and freedoms. Moreover, the existence of valid social spaces can serve as social control. If at-risk groups can find alternative ways of “becoming,” they can become less enticed to join or form organized crime groups. Social participation and mutual support Communities can provide social support and mutual help through assisting the formation of legal economic and social organizations and helping them find funding and other means to improve their conditions. The local government can, in itself or with the help of non-profit organizations, support community organizations that can replace the need for organized syndicates. They can provide funding or alliances, which are forms of mutual support. If these organizations need education and training, they should offer these opportunities, so that they no longer will need organized crime to support their individual and collective needs. Mutual support enhances the community spirit and allows people to find valid spaces for shaping their identities and forging collective destinies. Conclusions Organized crime has developed alongside the society in which it operates. It is complex and simple. It is complex because of the dynamics between organized crime and corruption and the social factors that shape organized crime. It is simple because it can be resolved, although with numerous factors involved. The community and local government, in particular, can help defeat organized crime. Empowered communities can offer valid social opportunities that can remove the economic or social demand for organized crime. Definitely, this is not a naive way of seeing organized crime, but a proposition for a community development approach to organized crime. Further studies are needed to find out how communities have or can eradicate organized crime using diverse community approaches. The federal government needs local communities to understand and fight organized crime by beating them at their own economic and socialization functions. Displacing organized crime with legitimate and relevant organizations and other functional spaces may be one of the most important long-term solutions to organized crime. References Abadinsky, H. (2010). Organized crime (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Albanese, J.S. (2011). Organized crime in our times (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Arlington Publishing. Barker, T. (2011). American based biker gangs: International organized crime. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36 (3), 207-215. Barker, T., & Human, K.M. (2009). Crimes of the Big Four motorcycle gangs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 174-179. Curry, P.A., & Mongrain, S. (2009). What is a criminal organization and why does the law care? Global Crime, 10 (1/2), 6-23. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2012). Overview: About organized crime. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/overview Finklea, K.M. (2010). Organized crime in the United States: Trends and issues for congress. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40525.pdf Lombardo, R.M. (2010). The hegemonic narrative and the social construction of deviance: The case of the Black Hand. Trends in Organized Crime, 13 (4), 263-282. Mallory, S. (2012). Understanding organized crime (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. Potter, G., & Cox, T. (1990). A community paradigm of organized crime. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 15 (1), 1-23. Stohl, M. (2008). Networks, terrorists and criminals: The implications for community policing. Crime, Law & Social Change, 50 (1/2), 59-72. Read More