The Things Research Papers Can Teach the Author (And an Organized Crime Primer)

August 8, 2009 at 1:26 am (Uncategorized) (, , , , , )

I know how much we all hate textbooks, research papers and the like, but having been buried in them daily for the last four and a half years as I’ve pursued my educational goals; I’ve come to the conclusion that sometimes the best information you can find to aid you as you explore topics to enrich your novels come from those very things we dread to think of.

For that very reason, I’ll be posting some of those research papers on various criminal justice topics (written by me during the course of my studies) here. I promise not to bore you to tears by posting them frequently; but every so often I remember one hidden in the endless list that I need to review for some non academic related writing purpose and will post it here if I feel the information might be beneficial to others. Trust me, there are probably three on some subject an author would never want/need to know to every one that might be helpful. I do solemnly promise to only post those that fall into the “might be helpful” category!

Sadly, even if they might be helpful, they are often quite dry reading if you have no interest whatsoever in the topic… but as I’ve learned time and time again; they can also spark those creative moments, as well as help you flesh out the details that you’re looking for. Or, at the very least, give you the information you need to locate the sources that will help you. Organized crime and criminal cartels, as I learned during my 10 weeks devouring the textbook and hammering out paper after paper to meet course requirements, are fascinating… and so very often do not work at all as Hollywood and popular novels would lead us to believe.

This paper (while long and probably quite boring to most) discusses some of those basics of organized crime that we’re so often unaware of; from the definition to the attributes of such a group to the organizational modules they tend to follow. If you never use a bit of the information contained here; I do hope you’ll read it, at the least, for the sake of learning something you didn’t know before. Unused knowledge is still knowledge, after all. 🙂

Organized Crime: A Review of the Basics (April 3, 2009)

While there is nearly overwhelming agreement that organized crime has been and currently is evidenced in the United States and abroad, agreement on the definition of organized crime has been less forthcoming. As Howard Abadinsky points out in Organized Crime (2007), “attempts to define OC have met with only limited success and no generally accepted definition has emerged” (p. 2). Over the years, individuals have settled upon their own definitions which have been used by various law enforcement agencies, but those definitions are often only applied so far as the agency using the definition extends.

In 1976, Michael Maltz suggested that this lack of a generally accepted definition might, in part, be a problem of semantics with both the crimes committed and the groups committing the crimes being considered organized crime, resulting in confusion over what exactly one refers to when one employs the term (Abadinsky, 2007). Despite this lack of agreement or clarity on definition, however, law enforcement organizations and agencies have been successful in identifying similar attributes of organized crime that have allowed individuals to come closer to pinpointing what constitutes organized crime and what does not (Abadinsky, 2007).

Those generally accepted attributes include that organized crime:

1. Has no political goals

2. is hierarchical

3. Has a limited or exclusive membership

4. Constitutes a unique subculture

5. Perpetuates itself

6. Exhibits a willingness to use illegal violence and bribery

7. Demonstrates specialization/division of labor

8. is monopolistic

9. And is governed by explicit rules and regulations (Abadinsky, 2007, pp. 2-3).

We have also been able to agree that organized crime groups tend to fall within two distinct organizational models; the bureaucratic/corporate model and the patrimonial/patron-client model (Abadinsky, 2007).

Under the bureaucratic model of organization, organized crime groups display attributes similar to those found in organizations such as the military; there is a complex hierarchy, there is extensive division of labor within the organization, positions or jobs are assigned on the basis of skill, responsibilities are carried out in an impersonal manner, extensive written rules and regulations exist, and communication occurs from the top levels to the bottom levels often in written form (Abadinsky, 2007, p. 6). Organizations that fall within the bureaucratic model of organization often do so out of necessity as, the bigger the organization, the more difficult it becomes to organize in any manner other than a bureaucratic manner.

The patrimonial/patron-client network is quite dissimilar from the bureaucratic model in many identifiable ways. First, the patrimonial model of organization “Centers around families, patrons and their clients and other personalistic networks” much as society tends to center around those same personalized relationships, allowing the emphasis to remain on emotional connection rather than abstract rules and regulations (Abadinsky, 2007, p. 7). Second, the patrimonial/patron-client network elites “are more ceremonious” than are the bureaucratic elites, further allowing the ritual and emotional connections found within society to take precedence over rule and regulation (Abadinsky, 2007). Finally, the patrimonial/patron-client network operates in a manner very different from that found within the bureaucratic model.

With the patrimonial structure, the “network consists of a collection of connected points or junctures” with each individual in the network acting as a point in that network (Abadinsky, 2007, p. 7). The boss, in an organized crime group, is set at the heart of the network, with his clients surrounding him, their clients surrounding them and on and on (Abadinsky, 2007). Individuals who do not know each other or may not even interact with one another are connected through the relationships that can be traced through the network back to the heart of that network or, in this case, the boss. This set-up, while complex in its own way, can ensure that the network is able to survive should something happen to those situated at the center.

In a bureaucratic organization, that continuity may not exist, as the individuals with the information are at the top of the organizational chain. If they are taken out, the entire chain suffers. In the patrimonial structure, however, the network can survive the loss of members so long as there are others in place able to serve the clients that would otherwise be affected. If, for instance, the boss is taken out, one of his clients may take over his position so long as he has the resources necessary to fill that role.

Another area of discussion and theory where organized crime is concerned is the beginnings of organized crime in the United States. During the Great Depression, Robert Merton “set forth a social and cultural explanation for deviant behavior in the United States” (Abadinsky, 2007, p. 14). According to his explanation, organized crime was “a normal response to pressures exerted on certain persons by the social structure” (Abadinsky, 2007, p. 14). In this case, the American fascination with wealth and social standing created strain on individuals without the legitimate means of achieving economic success as defined by society. The individuals were forced to work with what they had in order to gain economic success, leading to the advent of organized crime as an avenue of pursuing the success that was otherwise unavailable to them (Abadinsky, 2007).

Immigrants and those who were unable to pursue legitimate opportunities for success would turn to illegitimate opportunities in an effort to achieve the success that had been closed off to them (Abadinsky, 2007). When those illegitimate means afforded them with the success they sought, some were able to move into legitimate opportunities leaving behind their prior illegitimate opportunities while others had learned that they were able to play by a different set of rules and still gain the success they had sought, thus cementing organized crime as a way of life in the United States.

As organized crime became a way of life in the United States, those that had turned to organized crime realized that the government could work in their favor (Abadinsky, 2007). Unlike terrorist organizations, organized crime groups are generally content to allow the government that exists to remain in place, believing that the government can work in their favor without the added burden of trying to operate said government (Abadinsky, 2007). That said, they also realize that the more influence they have with the government, the more they are able to do. That being the case; organized crime groups often seek political influence as part of their operations.

As Abadinsky points out in Organized Crime (2007), “control of government, in particular the police, enabled the machine to protect vice entrepreneurs and gang leaders, who reciprocated with financial and voting support” (p. 50). Having influence in the government, on other hand, allowed organized crime groups to continue carrying out their mission and goals more or less unimpeded by the very individuals who could do the most harm to the organized crime world. When those in government owed their appointments to organized crime groups, they were more likely to work with those organized crime groups, realizing that they were the individuals who had put them in office and could, if dissatisfied, remove them from office.

In the post-Prohibition world, this corruption of government officials did not abate but the face of organized crime changed in several ways, thanks in part to the changes in social structure that came about because of Prohibition. Prior to Prohibition, “gangsters were merely the errand boys for the politicians and the gamblers; they were at the bottom of a highly stratified social milieu” (Abadinsky, 2007, p. 54). During Prohibition, however, the gangsters, or organized crime groups, were able to redefine that social structure and move to the top of the social ladder. This happened partly because they were able to provide the materials that had been outlawed, had the resources to ensure they were able to provide those materials on a larger scale and because they were able to work together in order to ensure that they were able to benefit from those materials (Abadinsky, 2007).

By the time the 19th Amendment was repealed, the actions of early organized crime groups during Prohibition had not only put them in position to move to the top of that social ladder but had also taught them what they needed to know to survive the end of the Prohibition era. As Abadinsky points out (2007), “the financial base of OC narrowed considerably” with the end of the Prohibition era, thus requiring that those who had profited during Prohibition find other means of staying afloat in the post-Prohibition era (p. 55). This necessity, of course, led to the advent of organized crime as it is now known. Organized crime groups not only hold illegitimate interests, but also legitimate interests that allow them to operate beneath the radar of police intervention and continue with those illegitimate interests.

While there is no generally accepted definition of organized crime, there are several attributes of organized crime that law enforcement agencies tend to agree upon. Those attributes and the organizational models of organized crime groups have allowed officials to differentiate between organized crime groups and other criminal outfits, such as terrorist organizations and better prepare to combat those organized crime groups. In addition to these attributes, officials have been able to explore the history of organized crime, including the establishment of organized crime in the United States and the effects of Prohibition on organized crime. What has been learned as a result is, by no means, a complete picture, but has allowed great insight into the implications and affects of organized crime groups in the United States and has better prepared law enforcement organizations to fight organized crime throughout the United States.

*The text referenced in this paper is Organized Crime (2007), written by Howard Abadinsky and published by Thomson Wadsworth.

Leave a comment