Category: Crime

Introduction

The drug market is the most violent among the sectors in the illegal economy. Understanding this economy is complex because they happen in distinct social contexts, like how some elements of the crack-cocaine market accelerated violence in poor communities. It happened between the late 1980s and mid-1990s, when there was a rise in drug market violence, especially in New York City. Dr. Randol Contreras gives a gripping ethnographic account of the violence in this particular period in history through decade-long field research on the “stickup kids,” Dominican nationals who lived in South Bronx. The stickup kids were brutal robbers specializing in torturing drug dealers who stored large amounts of cash and drugs (Contreras, 2013). Contreras applied a complex multilevel analysis linking biographical, historical, social-structural, and situational factors surrounding drug gangs and the development of robberies. The book is in three parts explaining specific vital and pivotal details that demonstrate how the participants became “stickup kids” and executed their violent drug robbery.

Historical context helps the reader grasp the social, political, and structural factors that lead to the 1980s New York crack cocaine epidemic. In the first part, Contreras (2013) situates the participants in the historical context of New York and the South Bronx, the epicenter of the rise of the crack-cocaine trade. The structural factors are varied and include political marginalization, rising unemployment, inadequate educational and economic resources, and the disenfranchisement of the residents of South Bronk due to neglect by the local government. Contreras managed to infuse the biographies of the participants into the particular historical moment and the rapid structural shifts to show how they became crack -cocaine dealers, just like the other disenfranchised youth across the nation from the urban ethnic and racial minorities.

Next, the author showed how the declining fortunes of the crack-cocaine trade spelled economic doom to the participants who had become very successful as crack-cocaine dealers. At this point, the study participants felt an economic “strain” and morphed into violent “stickup kids,” creating an economic niche entailing robbing drug dealers of their drugs and cash. They began to commit brutality and violence that surpassed their days as drug dealers. In this section, the author lays out the structure of the drug robberies using theoretical concepts like Goffman’s Systemic Violence. The last part of the book focuses on the effects of the crack epidemic on Dominican participants.

One of the book’s strengths is the participant-observer perspective that gives the reader a vivid description of the events, making it feel like one is seated with the author listening to the stories of the drug dealers. The author achieved this feat by maintaining extensive tape recordings and field notes of the stories shared by his childhood buddies and other stickup kids called the joloperos. Also, the author maintained the rich conversations he had with the Spanish participants in Spanish throughout the book, as well as those his childhood friends shared with other drug dealers. The author also writes about how the information led to self-discoveries from facts he received throughout the exercise.

One shortcoming of the book is that the author presents it as if it conveys the activities and lifestyles of all drug robbers, while in a real sense, it only focuses on the very close childhood friends. The author has covered chapters devoting them to childhood friends and their life stories, making the book read as a case study about them, yet it is supposed to be ethnographic research about violent drug robbers. There is no evidence that the author expanded his research to cover many study participants’ stories and perspectives. Therefore, it limits the part that other drug robbers play and renders the stories shared in the author’s research ungeneralizable because the lifestyle explained in the book are from a particular ethnic group of violent drug robbers, Dominicans.

Theoretical Analysis

The first theory that can be tied to the text is the theory of structural violence. According to Weigert (2008), social structure can perpetuate inequity and preventable suffering, leading to desperation and crime. In the case of the Stickup kids, the economic, political, legal, and medical structures do not seem to favor the minorities like the Dominican community in which the Stickup kids belong. Because of institutionalized discrimination, political marginalization, rising unemployment, inadequate educational and economic resources, neglect by the local government, and disenfranchisement, most minorities end up in crime. Drug violence can, therefore, be attributed to systemic racism and discrimination.

Another theory that could be applied to the stories of the robbers is the anomie theory by Emile Durkheim. It refers to human anguish resulting from a sudden personal or social crisis that weakens the person’s moral grip. Due to limited moral order, one may feel lost concerning their proper needs and desires. Consequently, their passions run amok, become uncontrollable, and lead to despair and suicidal ideation, as some kill themselves due to a lack of moral guidance (Downes et al., 2016). The anomy theory helps in explaining why the study participants engaged in violent drug robbery. It is vital to note that the theory explains why social norms and guidance break down.

While some people may decide to use institutionalized means to reach their societal goals, others, like the study participants, can explore un-institutionalized means to achieve their societal objectives. The means that a person chooses to reach their goal depends on the situation they find themselves in and their personal beliefs. According to Emile Durkheim, if a person cannot attain success through institutionalized means like employment, they resort to un-institutionalized means like drug dealing and drug robbery (Downes et al., 2016). The situational, historical, and political climate set in the book gives a glimpse of how a whole society can be forced into engaging in un-institutionalized means to attain societal goals. The context of the rise of the Stickup Kids entails political marginalization, rising unemployment, inadequate educational and economic resources, neglect by the local government, and disenfranchisement, the factors that often lead to an increase in crime in most of the areas occupied by ethnic and racial minorities.

The theory of anomy is exemplified in the life of the author’s two childhood friends Gus and Pablo, whom he metaphorically refers to as the “fallen stars.” Gus started as a professional drug dealer who prospered in producing and selling drugs and making a profit, with which he lived an extravagant lifestyle until the crack market began to dry up. He became so broke that he resorted to violently robbing drug dealers in addition to abusing marijuana to a level he never did before, maybe as a coping mechanism for the dwindling fortunes and the consequent social crisis of not being able to sustain his former extravagant lifestyle. Pablo’s life followed a similar trajectory, and he resorted to violent drug robbery for survival. The same trend was evident in the lives of many other Dominican men who fell from grace to grass, and became disoriented because of poverty, with some contemplating suicide and turning to violence as the means of survival.

Another critical theory is the rational choice theory which posits that criminal behavior is voluntary. According to Loughran et al. (2016), the choice to commit a crime is not determined by environmental factors, meaning that a person chooses to become a criminal willfully. It means, therefore, that the study participants acted as if they had free will over the choice to engage in robbing other people of their drugs and cash. If this theory is true, why did the study participants only choose to become violent when the drug market dried up and could no longer sustain their lifestyles? The answer is that they chose to engage in the violent robbery after considering the costs and benefits of doing it and the costs and benefits of staying without money. Not engaging in robbery meant that they would stay without money, meaning they could not survive, but they would be safe from the risks of robbery, like being wounded or killed. On the other hand, robbery would help them get some money to use but would expose them to gunfights’ dangers, leading to even death.

Conclusion

The story of the Stickup kids is a vivid portrayal of drug crime among the racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Structural violence theory, rational choice theory, and Emile Durkheim’s theory of anomie clearly explain how and why a society can precipitate such levels of criminal activities. When individuals are denied the right to attain societal goals legitimately, they resort to un-institutionalized methods, including drug robbery.

References

Contreras, R. (2013). The stickup kids. University of California Press.

Downes, D., Rock, P., & McLaughlin, E. (2016). 5. Anomie and Strain Theory.Understanding Deviance, 89-122. Web.

Loughran, T., Paternoster, R., Chalfin, A., & Wilson, T. (2016). Can Rational Choice Be Considered a General Theory of Crime? Evidence From Individual-Level Panel Data.Criminology, 54(1), 86-112. Web.

Weigert, K. (2008). Structural Violence.Encyclopedia Of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, 2004-2011. Web.

Introduction

The idea that criminal and offending behavior stands in the correlation with the genetic features of the offender is not a novelty of our time. Criminologists made many attempts to bring together the data concerning both features of appearance and some inner psychological characteristics to define the genetically inherent patterns causing criminal behavior. However, such investigations took an entirely new turn with the advancements in the neuroscience and genome studies. Today we can explore the brains of people committing criminal offences and analyze the specifics of their genomes. This paper’s objective is to explore different views on what can be done in the scenario when it is possible to define the violent and criminal inclinations in children of the age of four.

Ethics of neuroscience and means of deterrence

The discovery of the genetic components that are responsible for the violence and other criminal tendencies is helpful in many ways. However, it is nonetheless important to explore the ethical side of the problem. Before we find the precise relation between the genetics and criminal behavior, we need to consider and justify the actions we are going to take (Siegel, 2007).

The first evident solution of dealing with the issue is, of course, removing the cause of criminal behavior. There are still some variations to such scenario. The first possibility is that individuals with some brain abnormality are inclined to the violent behavior. If the abnormality is removed, then theoretically the potential criminal in question is ‘cured’ (Palmer, 2013). However, there are some counter arguments to that based on the less optimistic scenarios. One of them is that there still is such thing as the presumption of innocence, and four-year-olds with that abnormality have committed no crime whatsoever. Therefore, it is hard to justify those actions from the ethical standpoint. If we consider the removal of that abnormality as a means of deterrence of crime, then we still need to reflect on all the possible consequences. They include the dangers of the operations of that kind and all the possible abuse of power of those who make decisions about the operations.

Defective genes and isolation from the society

The scenario of the actual defective gene responsible for criminal inclinations is more difficult to imagine. Many studies suggest that such thing is improbable to exist (Palmer, 2013, p. 5). Nevertheless, the idea of isolating people that only potentially represent some threat is quite against most principles of humanity. Another solution that can easy come to mind is special attention and surveillance directed at people bearing such genes. However, this solution has two downsides as well. Firstly, it still interferes with the freedom of those who have the gene, and secondly, it can demand immense resources from the government because we do not know how many people have the gene.

Direction and guidance

The humane solution is, of course, monitoring (but not surveilling) the people with the diagnosed abnormality, even though such way out sounds less impressive. Scientists already know that gene is not a guarantee someone would commit a crime, it is a set of personal characteristics. Those characteristics can be directed in different ways. The personal traits typical for sociopaths can be found among successful businesspersons. Guidance, directing and training take more time and effort, but it does not exclude people from the society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the knowledge about the defected genes influencing behavior should be used not for isolating people but for providing them with guidance and using other their qualities for the good of the society.

References

Palmer, E. J. (2013). Offending behaviour. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Siegel, L. (2007). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Crime rates in Ireland have been on the increase since the early 1960s and by the late 1970s, these rates had reached a soaring scale, notably at a time when society had begun to industrialize and modernize. Rates of homicide have been especially on the increase in Ireland, although statistics indicate that levels of violent crime stand at half rates in the USA, a third of average rates in the EU, and a third of crime rates in England and Denmark. Most people are therefore hostile to allegations that the rate of crime especially in Irish cities should warrant any cause of alarm. Many Irish people think that the rising levels of violent crime should be the main cause of concern (Tovey & Share: 300, 302).

Although there was a decrease in the number of robberies, hijacking, and extortion at a rate of 6.7% between 2007 and 2008, the total number of such offenses was 2,307 in the year 2008, reflecting an increase of 6.2% from the recorded number in 2007. In 2008, the number of burglary cases recorded also increased with 1,058 with 72 of them being an increase in recorded aggravated burglary incidents. Vehicle and shop thefts also increased between 2007 and 2008, reflecting a 5.2% and 7.6 % increase respectively. This is an indication that gang-related crimes are nowhere being eradicated in Irish cities (CSO 2008).

In February 2009, in probably one of the biggest bank robberies in Ireland, some 7.6 m Euros was stolen from a Dublin bank in the Kilteel area of Co Kildare through what the media has described as a tiger kidnapping. This was a very elaborate crime committed by a team of organized criminals. The gang used the services of Shane Travers, a bank employee, to withdraw the money from the bank after taking hostage his partner, her mother, and the partner’s nephew in their Bagers Hill house in Kilteel. The gang forced their way into the house as the two women arrived home where Travers is said to have been alone watching television. Members of the gang made every effort to conceal their identity by wearing black clothing, balaclavas, and gloves although they are said to have spoken in Dublin accents. At least three of the gang men held handguns although the use of a shotgun in the robbery could not be ruled out. One of the women was also struck with a vase, injuring her on the head. After almost what can be described as a whole night’s hostage, the two women and child were then driven to the Rath Co Meath. Mr. Travers then drove to the bank of Ireland branch at College Green at around 6.58 am and left within 15 min with four laundry bags. He drove to Clontarf where a man took possession of Traver’s car at the Dart Station. Mr. Traver immediately reported the crime at the Clontarf Garda station and hours later, the car was found burnt down in Glasnevin (Caollai 2009).

The term crime is used to refer to a type of deviance that describes the type of behavior through which individuals break particular social rules namely, those societal rules that have been defined and enshrined within criminal law. The issue of crime has attracted much political attention as well as public concern and these factors have helped so much to shape the sociological approach to crime. In the study of crime, sociologists tend to relate criminal behavior to childhood upbringing, defective socialization, or the environment a criminal has been exposed to. But deviance results from an interaction between the criminal and those that have witnessed the crime (Dawnes & Rock: 21-25).

For sociologists, crime has been and will always be a topic of great interest primarily because it reflects a lot about the condition of the society in which it is taking place. According to Durkheim, one of the early sociologists, the extent of crime reflects a society’s economic, social and cultural conditions. Many other sociologists are however of the opinion that crime rates can best be viewed as reflecting social inequality in a society with high rates of crime reflecting inequality of higher magnitude. According to sociologists, individual freedom and affluence lead to increased crime in modern society although the relation between rising crime and modernization varies between different sociologists. Change produces a type of social disorganization that interrupts social control institutions and methods as well as disrupting societal values. In such a situation, there is no clear-cut definition of the expected behavior in people (Tovey & Share: 298 -299, 302).

Sociologists have also argued that the tendency to equate certain criminal activities with young people is often a reflection of the welfare and health of the society in question. Criminal offenses such as burglary, rape, and theft are largely viewed as the domain of the young working-class male population. The media especially pays particular attention to coverage of certain crimes such as vandalism, drug use, and school truancy as an illustration of rising levels of permissiveness in society. This is because young people have always been viewed as an indicator of a society’s health and welfare (Giddens: 820-821).

In Ireland, like any other modern society, crime continues to be a societal concern. A tremendous shift has however occurred that deviates from portraying offenders as maladjusted or deprived delinquents to rapacious and avaricious predators, feckless youths, or career criminals. Crime is largely being regarded as existing in the core of normal daily social interactions, a factor that has led to the establishment of standard motivations of situational controls aimed at preventing crime (Campbell 2008).

References

Campbell, L. 2008. The culture of control in Ireland: theorizing recent developments in criminal justice. Web.

Caollai, E.O. 2009. 7.6 m Euros taken from bank as family held hostage.Web.

Central Statistics Office Ireland (CSO). 2009. Current releases and publications: recorded crime quarter. Web.

Downes, D.M. & Rock, P.E. 2007. Understanding deviance: a guide to the sociology of crime and rule-breaking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Giddens, A. 2006. Sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Tovey, H. & Share, P. 2003. A sociology of Ireland. Dublin, Ireland: Gill & Macmillan Ltd.

Street gang violence is a common phenomenon that takes place in the urban areas. Although the problem is widespread and long-standing, the U.S. government began to see the criminal gangs as a serious threat to public security just recently. The states elaborate and adopt the laws meant to fight organized crime and gangs and prevent their violence. However, as many researchers observe, the urban criminal groups are dynamic and multilateral in their nature, and it is thus highly challenging to combat them.

Although it may seem that organized crime and street gangs are different, it is often hard to make a distinction between them. In the modern academic debate, there are many controversial and vague definitions of organized crime. Overall, the criminologists see human trafficking, arms, and drug dealing as the major illegal activities enabled by organized crime (Hauck, 2010, p. 409). It is possible to say that organized criminality is related to a category of serious crimes that have a large scope of functioning and proliferation. This category of illegal activities is practiced by “professionals” in the large organizations.

According to one point of view, gangs are scattered and self-interested aggregations of individuals who work primarily for themselves (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998, p. 396). However, nowadays gangs’ activities are usually regarded as organized criminal groups because of the multiple structural and organizational features (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998, p. 195). “City gangs within the United States have evolved in the past several decades to become sophisticated organizations with clear objectives beyond random crimes and territorial protection” (Fox, 2012, p. 3). Thus, the modern gangs can be considered as entrepreneurs – they often implement conventional economic and investment strategies and adopt the group values that motivate the gang members in goals achievement. Many gangs are characterized by a high level of differentiation within the organizational structure – each of the members has his own role and duties within the group (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998). As well as in the criminal organizations, the gangs are constituted of leaders and their subordinates. As the result, the distinction between organized crime and gangs is blurred. Moreover, criminal organizations are frequently developed from gangs and also employ the street gangs’ participants to serve them.

In the U.S. legislation, there is no particular difference drawn between gangs and organized crime. Most of the states punish participation in any kind of criminal group that are described as “ongoing organizations” or associations with more than two participants who share a common identifying signs and pattern of unlawful activities (Hauck, 2010, p. 415). Nevertheless, organized crime can be distinguished from the small “non-organized” street gangs by the intensity of criminal activities. In this case, intensity can be understood as the extent and strength of the groups’ confrontation with the state security, political, and public forces and the level of threat to the public well-being.

Throughout the history, the government and legal institutions adopted severe anti-gang regulations and legislation for fighting organized crime. According to Fox (2012), the police crackdowns are the most common method of criminality reduction (p. 7). U.S. government spends significant amounts of money for building prisons to house the criminal groups’ participants. However, despite all the undertaken measures the statistic data shows that organized and gang crime rates are rising. Many researchers in criminology suggest the state legislators to implement alternative methods and techniques of fighting these dynamic and complicated phenomena (Fox, 2012). For example, the development of the community interrelations, elaboration of national programs promoting the community values, and other protective measures may provide the potential solution needed for the reduction of the urban violence.

References

Decker, S. H., Bynum, T., & Weisel, D. (1998). A tale of two cities: Gangs as organized crime groups.Justice Quarterly, 15(3), 395-425. Web.

Fox, J. P. (2012). Legitimacy and law enforcement: The counterinsurgency against gang crime in the united states. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. Web.

Hauck, P., & Peterke, S. (2010). Organized crime and gang violence in national and international law.International Review of the Red Cross, 92(878), 407-436. Web.

Russian Organized Crime

The last decade of the XX century was very hard for Russia. As the USSR split into separate republics, the country turned out to be in chaos. This situation was effectively used by criminals who possessed skills to cheat people and deal with administration executives by offering them bribes. In a short time, most of the country’s factories and other valuable pieces of industry were in the hands of Russian OC members. Nowadays, they make up the contemporary OC group in the country that works towards getting wealthier. Most of them possess political power.

The Vory had similar methods of influence. They controlled their enemies by fear and killed anyone who would stand in their way. However, they had a very strict code of conduct that did not let them act as they wished (Abadinsky 129). The Vory helped each other and never thrived to get as rich as possible. They opposed the government that, according to them, was guilty of putting them into such conditions.

African-American Organized Crime

Organized crime groups of African-Americans engage in the same activities as other OC structures in the world. For instance, their main focus is on drug trafficking, which is similar to the Mexican criminal activity. However, Mexicans control this market, and there is little space for Blacks to compete in this field. Moreover, they do not have as much power as Russians or Africans do. African-Americans usually do not expand their activities further than the area they control, which is usually small. Finally, the American police administration does not want to create a racial conflict by stressing that Blacks are in charge of the local OC.

Nigerian Organized Crime

Drug trafficking is one of the main activities of Nigerian OC groups. They share this feature with Mexican and African-American criminal organizations. One main difference between this OC group with others is that they do not form a mafia structure as it is done, for example, among Russian criminals. They unite based on their current needs and tasks (Allum and Gilmour 127). Their primary product is heroin since they cannot compete with Mexico over cocaine. While Nigerian OC members transfer some cocaine from South America to Europe and Africa, their heroin trade is accounted for almost 90 percent of the total world number. Nigerian criminal groups that operate in the United States do not usually work on the streets. They rather act as distributors that sell drugs through low-level street dealers.

Mexican Organized Crime

Mexico is known for its high corruption level and the wars between cartels that control the drug trafficking. The latter feature is similar to activities in Colombian cartels. Both structures deal with cocaine distribution mainly to the USA. Moreover, drug trafficking is their primary activity, if not exclusive. However, Mexico has an advantage since its border with the USA allows drug dealers to reach a wide market of consumers. Corruption is tolerated in Mexican society in general. It became possible since the country’s government was formed through bribing officials in return for political support (Edmonds-Poli and Shirk 56). Moreover, Mexico is not a wealthy country, which makes the government tolerate drug cartels since they bring much income to it. Besides, the country is very traditionalistic, and paternalism is a common model of relationships in many structures.

Works Cited

Abadinsky, Howard. Organized Crime. 11^th ed., Cengage Learning, 2016.

Allum, Felia, and Stan Gilmour. Routledge Handbook of Transnational Organized Crime. Routledge, 2012.

Edmonds-Poli, Emily, and David A. Shirk. Contemporary Mexican Politics. 2^nd ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2012.

Martha Stewart is the home-decorating entrepreneur, known to many. On December 27, 2001, Faneuil informed his boss Mr. Bacanovic that the ImClone Systems CEO was selling his shares in the company. On learning this information, Stewart sold all her shares in the company earning her a whopping $228,000.

Martha Stewart’s Crime

The charges leveled against Stewart regard “insider trading.” This is wherein a person sells or buys shares by using the tip or non-public information offered to them by individuals in the same company. This disadvantages shareholders and would-be-shareholders. Stewart was informed by her stockbroker, Douglas Faneuil, that Mr. Waksal was seeking to offload family shares held at Merrill Lynch. Acting on this information, Faneuil had passed the same information to Mr. Bacanovic. Bacanovic instructed Faneuil to pass the information to Stewart. Stewart then directed Faneuil to sell all her 3900 shares (Smith, 2014).

While Mr. Waksal was a shareholder at Merrill Lynch, Stewart was a client and also held shares. Stewart was aware that the information she had been given by Faneuil about the sale was in contravention of the duties of confidence and trusted the stockbroker owed to the company and its clients. Nevertheless, she acted on the tip-off. She was convicted of securities fraud (Gilpin, 2005). Charges of conspiracy, deceit, and obstruction of justice were also preferred against her (Biography, 2004).

Martha Stewart’s Act as White-Collar Crime

White-collar crime is viewed as an illegal act typified by violation of confidence and trust, cover-up, or deception. These are not dependent upon the use of intimidation of, aggression, or physical force. In white-collar crimes, individuals and parties commit acts in pursuit of services, material goods, or money. Those involved seek to circumvent paying or losing services or money. They may also seek to secure individual or commerce advantage (Onlinelawyers, n.d.).

In view of Stewart, the criteria were met. Being a client of Merrill Lynch, she violated trust and confidence by acting on inside information provided by Faneuil. She covered her act by pretending to have acted instinctively to the market to sell her shares (Scannell and Rose, 2004). She had feared that the refusal by FDA to authorize the drug under test, Erbitux, would result in a drop in share value or eventual collapse of the company. By selling her shares, she realized more than $200,000. In the process, she avoided losing $45,000.

Martha Stewart’s Sentence

The sentence given to Stewart was not equivalent to the charges preferred against her and found guilty. She was given a five-month prison time, five-month house arrest with two years of probation thereafter (Hays, 2004). Each of the charges against Stewart has a maximum of five years in incarceration. This sentence is what the jury should have pursued, considering the increasing cases of white-collar crimes that involve millions of money. Nevertheless, the federal judge was not sufficiently harsh to give Stewart the maximum imprisonment. This is despite such crimes having been previously committed. Hence, Stewart was aware of the crimes and the repercussions. Further complicating her situation, she had been appointed to the stock exchange board of directors. This means that she was aware of the rules that govern stock exchange but chose to ignore them, instead opting to take the white-collar crime route.

References

Biography (2004). Why did Martha Stewart go to jail? Web.

Gilpin, K. (2005). Martha Stewart indicted on criminal charges. Web.

Hays, C. (2004). Martha Stewart’s sentence: The overview; 5 months in jail, and Stewart vows, ‘I’ll be back’. Web.

Onlinelawyers. (n.d.). Recent cases of white-collar crime. Web.

Scannell, K., & Rose, M. (2004). Martha Stewart is found guilty of all charges. Web.

Smith, W. (2012). Basics of insider trading: Why Martha Stewart went to jail. Web.

Organized crime, in my view, occurs when two or more persons form a rational, ongoing conspiracy to commit crime for reasons such as the desire to make a profit or religious and political extremism. The term can therefore be described as a continuing criminal undertaking that rationally works to benefit from illegal activities through the use of force, intimidation, domination, and/or the corruption of public officials.

This perception is supported in the literature by Albanese (2012), who also argues that the criminal enterprise might consist of two individuals engaged in a small-scale conspiracy, or a comprehensive network of individuals located in several countries but glued together by their intent to commit a multinational crime.

Several assumptions have been made in providing the definition of organized crime. For example, it has been assumed that a single offender has no capacity to plan and execute organized crime, that there must be a form of rational planning for organized crime to be successfully executed, and that organized crime offenders do not necessary seek to benefit financially from their criminal enterprise.

The personal description and perception of organized crime, in my view, is different from the descriptions found in the two books. For example, although Lyman and Potter (2007) agree that organized crime is a rational, ongoing conspiracy among two or more persons to commit a crime, they nevertheless argue that the most profitable forms of organized crime primarily focus on scams and schemes involving absolutely legal actions such as labor racketeering and extortion.

The distinctive feature, therefore, is embedded in the fact that it may be difficult to distinguish organized crime from other legal activities. In sampling the major similarity, however, it is evident that organized crime entails a rational, ongoing conspiracy because the authors agree that crimes of this nature are not just organized but well thought out and executed with the precise objective of evading detection.

The personal perception of organized crime is also different from the definition provided by Mallory (2007), although a few similarities can be noted. The author is of the opinion that a proper definition of organized crime “refers to acts that are both mala in se and mala prohibita, and includes detailed information about how these activities became organized” (Mallory, 2007 p. 3).

However, he acknowledges that there is no agreed upon definition of organized crime, hence persons, agencies and states dealing with this form of crime must take into account the structure, objectives for conspiracy, and characteristics of the group on a case-by-case basis.

In discussing the characteristics associated with organized criminal behavior, one of the underlying factors is that actors in organized crime may not necessarily be driven by profit gain. For example, Islamic terrorists commit crimes of an organized nature largely due to religious and political considerations. Another characteristic of organized criminal behavior is premised on the fact that two or more people must come together to form an ongoing conspiracy, with the view to executing crimes for whatever reasons.

Indeed, Albanese (2012) opines that “the vast majority of these offenses simply cannot be carried out effectively by lone offenders, by those who are not organized, or by those without contacts in other countries” (p. 3). For example, the transnational crime of child trafficking is committed by two or more people, who must have formed a rational, ongoing conspiracy to execute the crime across several countries.

Another defining characteristic associated with organized criminal behavior is that, in most instances, the actors in the criminal enterprise employ force, threats, and intimidation to protect markets, or disorient the social fabric by igniting fear among the populace. However, as suggested by Treadwell (2014), this trend is increasingly changing as more and more people engage in cybercrime. As a matter of fact, most cybercrimes are organized in nature and scope, but actors can perpetrate a crime against an individual several thousand miles away from them.

Other characteristics of organized crime include (1) a clear unit of command within a group, (2) principle of definition, which clearly defines authority and responsibility of members, (3) a span of control, (4) principle of objectivity, which defines the purpose of the organization or the business that is undertaken, (5) insulation and the need-to-know principle, which binds members to only contact their immediate boss and peers, (6) a pyramidal structure, whereby orders and important decisions are made at the top, (7) principle of specialization, which binds members to be experts in a single job function, and (8) strict adherence to rules (Mallory, 2012).

Overall, this paper has looked into the issue of organized crime from a personal perspective and also from the definitions provided in the readings. Additionally, the characteristics associated with organized criminal behavior have been well illuminated.

Drawing from this exposition, it is clear that no singular definition of organized crime will ever be developed; however, criminologists and other interested parties must learn to develop a consensus in defining this form of crime based on the nature and scope of the case as well as the distinctive features and characteristics of groups involved in organized crime.

References

Albanese, J.D. (2012). Deciphering the linkages between organized crime and transnational crime. Journal of International Affairs, 66(1), 1-16.

Lyman, M.D., & Potter, G.W. (2007). Organized crime (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mallory, S.L. (2012). Understanding organized crime (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett.

Treadwell, J. (2014). Lush life: Constructing organized crime in the UK. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 53(1), 105-107.

Introduction

General Notions

UK crime rates are reported to have decreased over the recent years. Accordingly, on the basis of statistical data, it is possible to assume that the current crime rates are lower than the ones observed in recent years, between 1995 and 2009. The purposes of the report are thus to analyze the statistical data by the UK Home Office (2009), to compare rates dynamics regarding various crime types, and make respective conclusions that would help in either confirming or rejecting the report hypothesis.

Data Collection

Data Sources

The data for the above-stated purposes are collected from three major sources. First, crime rate statistics are retrieved from the annual Home Office report (2009). The second source of the data is the information provided by BCS, while the third source is the whole complexity of police records (Tomz et al., 2000).

Collection and Sampling Strategies

Landreneau (2004) singles out two sampling strategies, including probability and non-probability sampling, and argues that the former is a more reliable and representative one. Therefore, this report uses probability sampling as a general strategy and the simple random method as a specific sampling technique (Landreneau, 2004). This means that the samples will be randomly selected to make chances of full representation equal.

Specifically, this report analyzes the violent crime and property crime rates in the UK. Both samples are selected randomly, as it is assumed that the dynamics of these crime rates will provide a more or less comprehensive picture of crime in the UK, both regarding personal violence and crime related to property.

Data Analysis

Statistical Test Used

The results of the report will be analyzed using the so called Mann-Whitney test, which is a simple, non parametric test used predominantly as an analogy of the parametric t­-test when two samples are to be analyzed and discussed (EDAC, 2007). The very Mann-Whitney test is designed to find the statistics parameter U, which is referred to as the equal chance of both samples’ probability.

So, the two samples used for the purposes of this report are the violent crime and the property crime rates assessed between 1995 and 2009. Both samples contain 15 instances each. Violent crime is referred to as sample A, while property crime is represented by sample B. Figure 1 represents the gradation of the samples selected for the study:

Figure 1. Sample gradation

The meaning of T, the sum of the sample A gradation meanings, is thus calculated as follows:

• T = 1 + 5 + 6 + 9 + 11 + 12 + 16 + 17 + 18 + 20 + 21 + 23 + 25 + 27 + 28 = 239

So, when T is calculated, it is possible to calculate U. For this, it is necessary to use the formula, in which N_A and N_B represent the numbers of instances in each sample:

• U = N_A N_B + N_A(N_A + 1) / 2 – T
• U = (15 x 15) + 15(15 + 1) / 2 – 239
• U = 225 + 240 / 2 – 239
• U = 225 + 120 – 239
• U = 106

Respectively, U’ can be found by extracting the meaning of U from the values of N_A and N_B multiplied. U’ in this case will reflect the probability of failure of the null hypothesis, according to which crime rates in UK have decreased over the recent years, between 1995 and 2009:

• U’ = N_A N_B – U
• U’ = 225 – 239
• U’ = – 14.

Test Results

So, the results of the Mann-Whitney test show that the crime rates in UK decreases between 1995 and 2009, and there is almost no probability of this hypothesis’ failure. The number of samples used is 2, with each one including 15 instances reflecting crime rate changes for 15 years. The significance of the test results is obvious as the results allow seeing the actual picture of crime rates in UK. The effect size is also considerable as crime rate reduction evidences the improvement of living standards and security prospects in UK. Finally, the statistical power of these results is so great as to encompass and reflect on the dynamics of UK crime rates over 15 years.

Discussion

The above presented analysis of statistical data using the Mann-Whitney test reveals the fact that the hypothesis, according to which UK crime rates have decreased between 1995 and 2009, is true. Such an idea is obtained from the fact that the Mann-Whitney test results provide no probability of the hypothesis failure for the analyzed data.

Further on, the results of the statistical analysis reported in this paper partly conform to the generally known and published statistics by the UK Home Office and the British Crime Survey. These results conform only partly, because the very Home Office report contains two seemingly opposite viewpoints. First, according to the BCS, crime rates remain stable in UK compared to the rates of early 2000s, while police records claim the crime rates to drop over this period for about 5 – 6% (Home Office, 2009).

As the results of the statistical analysis show, based on the data provided by the Home Office report (2009), both violent crime and property crime rates have decreased for approximately 50% between 1995 and 2009. Accordingly, one can assume that the police records are more adequate in their assessment of 5 – 6% reduction in crime over the last 3 years.

Conclusions

Accordingly, the logical conclusion of this report is that the crime rates in UK have been on the steady decrease since 1995, and the use of the Mann-Whitney test allowed proving this point not only by applying direct statistical data, but also by using those data to calculate the probabilities of confirming and rejecting the crime rate reduction hypothesis. So, it is recommended that statistical tests on the whole, and such non-parametric tests as the Mann-Whitney test in particular, should be used to trace the crime rate dynamics in UK as well as in other countries.

Works Cited

EDAC. Parametric and Non-Parametric Tests. Blackwell, 2007. Web.

Home Office. Crime in England and Wales 2008/2009. Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 2009. Web.

Landreneau, K. Sampling Strategies. NATCO, 2004. Web.

Tomz, M. et al. Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.Harvard University, 2000. Web.

Introduction

Broken windows theory refers to a hypothesis related to criminology. The theory identifies, and explains certain observations on how to manage crime and explicit behavior in urban environments. According to the theory, proper maintenance and monitoring of urban areas plays a crucial role in providing security to people.

James Wilson and George Kelling introduced the broken windows theory in 1982. The social scientists discussed the theory through an article published in the United States. Since then, the theory has attracted a wide range of unfavorable judgment from various people. Police department of the United States has been among the main beneficiaries of this theory. Various state governments apply the theory in developing their policies on crime. A crucial element about this theory is the concept of fear.

According to criminology experts, the broken windows theory develops upon this concept. This explains the reason why it is widely used police agencies. The police agencies classify public disorder as one of the major problems they deal on a daily basis. They argue that it acts as a source of fear among community members. Disorder in urban environments often elevates fear among people. This results in the development of a social prototype that reduces cohesion among community members.

Discussion

In one of their publications, James Wilson and George Kelling argued that modern policing has shifted its focus from ensuring order to dealing with escalating levels of crime in urban environments. This phenomenon resulted from riots that begun developing in urban areas during the 1960s.

The riots disrupted social order and security among urban communities. This created an urgent need for police agencies to maintain the safety of streets by reducing mass violence. This is a clear indication that police agencies still apply this theory in their work.

Various communities in the United States have successfully applied the broken windows theory in ensuring order across various their urban environments. Massachusetts is one of the communities that have managed to apply this theory to improve security in their streets. The aim of the program was to reduce levels of crime in the community by improving their physical environment. They believed that arresting people would not bring the desired change, as long as the criminal hideouts remained operational.

Police agencies in the community collaborated with researchers from Harvard University and Suffolk University to identify, and clear out various criminal hideouts. The most identifiable challenges involved disposal of waste, faulty streetlights, and poor enforcement of building codes among others. The program also involved providing counseling services to victims of crime. Police officers had to change their operational routine in some areas to ensure the program was successful.

Application in Cincinnati, Ohio

The broken windows theory would be very effective in Cincinnati, Ohio. One of the biggest challenges experienced by police agencies in this community involves dealing with traffic criminals. The streets of Cincinnati, Ohio have become very insecure because of a disorganized physical environment.

Poor infrastructure characterized by defective equipments such as streetlights has contributed a lot to the high rates of crime in this location. One of the key things to note when implementing this theory in such a location is that people will often resist change. Therefore, it is important to ensure that change programs apply in a manner that attracts public support. When introducing change, it is important to ensure that all people support the initiative.

Introduction

The active and noticeable presence of police, logically, can be assumed as a measure that reduces the levels of crime in a given area. However, this conclusion has been doubted by many criminologists (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). Fortunately, the relationship between the dosage of police patrols in certain areas and the prevalence of criminal activity there can be tested. In order to find out the actual crime dynamics that follow the increased number of police patrols, Sherman and Weisburd carried out their study that found that the initial assumption was true.

Purpose of the Study

The authors of this study were driven by an intention to determine whether or not it was correct that regular police patrols had little value in establishing safety and preventing crime (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). In fact, as stated in the study, this perception was adopted not only by criminologists and members of the general public but also by police employees. Interestingly, the study by Andersen and Malleson (2014) found that motorized and foot patrols are perceived as effective for the minimization of crime activity even though they may cause its displacement.

Key Question

The key question addressed by the authors revolves around the effectiveness of police patrols in crime hot spots. This aspect is challenged by the common perception that the presence of patrols makes little to no difference. In particular, Sherman and Weisburd mentioned that some criminologists based their denial of the effectiveness of police patrols on the absence of evidence of the impact their presence produces. As a result, it is possible to conclude that the key issue the authors aimed to address concerned the question whether or not there was an observable change in crime statistics that could be connected to the presence and number of police patrols.

Data and Methods

The study by Sherman and Weisburd (1995) was shaped as a randomized controlled trial that included a sample comprised of 110 crime hot spots in Minneapolis. The sample of hot spots was selected based on the rate of criminal activity reported in various areas of Minneapolis – the ones with heavy crime activity were included. These locations were randomly subdivided into experimental and control hot spots. Fifty-five experimental hot spots were provided with an increased number of police patrols. All hot spots were systematically observed for 7542 hours, and the obtained outcomes were compared. It was agreed to provide the experimental hot spots with three hours of patrolling a day seven days a week.

Findings

The outcome of this experiment were measured based on the police calls reporting criminal activity of different degrees of severity. It was found that the total number of police calls reporting all types of crimes was lower in experimental spots than in control spots. This difference was particularly noticeable in the statistics of “soft crime”. Consequently, it can be stated that the message of this research points to the overall effectiveness of police patrols even though it showed little impact on “hard” crime. However, all in all, the authors proved that it is incorrect to deny the patrols’ effectiveness completely.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study was the inability of the police department of Minneapolis to adhere to the agreed 3 hours of patrolling a day. Therefore, the expected dosage of the presence of patrols was not fulfilled. It is possible that this factor could have altered the final results of the study. Additionally, the fact that the project was undertaken in just one city is another limitation that weakens the reliability of the study which could be gained by means of replicating this project.

References

Anderson, M. A., & Malleson, N. (2014). Police foot patrol and crime displacement: A local analysis. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(2), 186-199.

Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625-648.