Introduction
Organized crime has been a matter of major concern in the United States of America for a long period. Attempts to get rid of this social ill have not been fruitful. Mallory defines organized crime as an activity that is not allowed in the society and deal with illegal substances, and services such as drugs, gambling and stealing (Mallory 2007). Given this explanation, organized crime can be seen as a social institution that is socially disorganized. Organized crime has deemed to be problematic to eliminate from the society, despite the several attempts by the government to curb it. However, there is still room for improvement in regards to going about this problem.
Inherent in organized crime are a multitude of problems, which makes the tackling of this difficult issue. To begin with, establishing the motive behind the involvement in organized crime is problematic. As such, even controlling or eliminating organized crime becomes elusive. The fact that organized crime receives favorable support from the public itself through the purchase of illegal goods and services, which are often in high demand, such as gambling, drugs, and prostitution. It is impractical for the society to expected law enforcement top curb organized crime when the society indirectly supports this ill-motivated movement. Moreover, the organized crime is comprised of several members, which makes it difficult to trace them and eliminate a major problem. Organized crime membership expands with the high level of unemployment encountered in the nation and across the world. Additionally, the public’s reliance on the organized crime to provide goods and services that are illegal makes it easy for the criminal organizations distort and manipulate the public (Lyman and Potter, 2007). It is the reason organized crime makes relationships with politicians in their bid to win votes from the public and financing from the organized crime, as well.
Furthermore, organized crime leads to the development of relationships among criminals with expertise of the highest degree. The resulting criminal organizations are likened to crime schools where pro criminals are spawned. No wonder, when one criminal is apprehended, a replacement is sought with immediacy. The strong relationship that exists between the public and the criminal organizations dampens the efforts of the government to notice organized crime. Such kinds of relationships are fortified by giving back to the society. Besides, the massive recruitments enhance the growth of the network of organized crime day by day (Levitt & Dubner, 2009). Together with the problems underlying organized crime, these relationships render the attempts to eradicate organized crime futile.
The enforcers of the state law and the federal find it a great challenge to tackle organized crime. There are massive legal limitations colligated to fighting organized crime. Prosecuting such offenders is complex given the technical adeptness and effectiveness of these crime syndicates. Additionally, the carrying out of complex business transactions makes organized criminals to be depicted as carrying mundane business operations when their motive is to disguise their illegal activities (Miller, 2010). One of the ways of fighting organized crime is through the prosecution of the offenders. Nevertheless, witnesses are essential before instituting charges against these criminals and it is rare to find a witness who is willing to attest against the organize crime. In some cases, the criminals influence the decisions made by the law enforcers.
Organized crime has not been curbed even by the enactment of stern laws. Rather, such laws have the potential of being challenged and criticized. For instance, a law was specifically enacted with intent to deal with organized crime, in 1970. It was named Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act and was based on the deterrence theory of organized crime (Lyman and Potter, 2007). The law requires that anybody who, within a period of not more than ten years, commits two out of the thirty-five specified crimes is to be charged. Also, if found guilty, a fine of 250,000 dollars is to be paid, or a jail term of 20 years is to be granted to the criminal. Over and above these requirements, the law requires that the attorney seizes the assets of the criminal, right before being rendered guilty. The aim of this latter requirement is to deter the gains garnered from organized crime from being used to pay the fines for the criminal to be set free (Miller, 2010). However, this law is ineffective since it prompts the criminal to confess that he is guilty to lesser charges in order to trivialize his stay in prison besides avoiding fines and damages. Also, by seizing the defendant's assets, he or she is deprived the right to legal representation since it is not possible to hire an attorney, who will represent them. To that end, the enacted laws fall short of giving a long-term solution to this problem.
The problem with prosecuting organized crime is that the Federal government is only concerned with the top ranking criminals. The government fails to recognize organized crime comprises of a huge network and long chain of criminals who work under the instructions of the top menu. Organized crime does not culminate with the elimination of the main criminals. Going for the criminals in the bottom does not solve the problem since the top criminals will continue recruiting new members, and the gangs will continue growing. An effective way of dealing with organized crime is by ending it in its diverged embodiments. One way is by creating jobs for the American people so that they do not join organized crime out of desperation. By so doing, some gangs will disappear for sure due to lack of people to recruit for their businesses’ operations (Lyman and Potter, 2007). Moreover, public education on the consequences of consuming the illegal goods and services supplied through organized crime is a way of shrinking the businesses of the gangs and hence their disappearance. The federal government needs to consider such recommendations for it to succeed in eliminating organized crime in the society.
References
Levitt, S.D. & Dubner, S.J. (2009). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden
Side of Everything. Harper Perennial publishers.
Lyman, M. D., & Potter, G. W. (2007). Organized crime. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Mallory, S. L. (2007). Understanding organized crime. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Miller, H.J. (2010). A federal viewpoint on combating organized crime. American academy of
political and social science.
