Menu

Criminal Careers in Organized Crime Essay

0 Comment

There is no generally accepted definition of organized crime yet, due mostly to the rapid development and shifting of the forms in which organized crime appears. Since high professionalism, organization and nearly boundless financial means are characteristic for organized crime, the circumstances in this field are constantly irritating. The earnings represent an ever increasing danger for the State and the Society, since organized crime invests them on one side in entirely legal business – money laundry; while on the other side they characterize an enormous fraud to be expected.

This is the reason why a political question appears here, namely, how a certain society can take care of the safety of its inhabitants and it’s State as an organization. Corruption and organized crime are serious criminal phenomena, but they are also much more than that. Not only is organized crime an obstruction to national development and globalization, but with its links to terrorist groups all over the world. It’s become a threat to national security to the United States, and opening Societies.

The threat that these actions of organized crime presents is compounded because worldwide criminal organizations often act with the tacit or explicit support of state authorities. Throughout the history of criminological thought, various theories on crime causation have been formulated. Unfortunately, many questions as to why individuals commit crime still remain unanswered. Wilson and Hernstein (1985) argue such a phenomenon is due to bad theories yielding incomplete views about the world.

This can be explained, in this writer’s opinion, by a lack of integration among the major theorists of past and present instead choosing to limit the search for answers within the realm of their chosen perspective. By combining the ideas expressed by the concepts of differential association (Sutherland 1949) and anomie (Merton 1938) the present theory attempts to provide a more accurate and exhaustive explanation as to why some individuals commit crime where others do not. The first fragment of this paper briefly explains the workings of a good theory.

Furthermore, the sources from which the theory of criminal craving draws upon are outlined specifying any changes or improvements made. The next section presents the assumptions made about human personality disagreeing only one instinctive human feature exists, craving, and even that is eventually formed by the situation. The concepts associated with the theory, the causal process involving craving to criminal behavior, and a list of propositions tying the abovementioned concepts to one another are existing.

Continuing, an outline of the three main hypotheses connected with the theory of criminal desire is presented along with an rationalization of its falsifiability. The theory’s broad historical context and strong clarifying power is then discussed followed by a portrayal of the various criminal justice policy implications brought into light. THEORY Merton (1967:39) theory “refers to reasonable organized sets of propositions from which observed uniformities can be consequential. ” In regards to what constitutes a good theory Sutton and Staw (1995) argue that a general lack in concurrence exists among scholars.

While this is true, a general theme can be practical in the literature. Social scientists primarily agree that the explanation principle of any theory includes justification and calculation. This is accomplished through the use of concepts planned in such a way that causal associations are anticipated explaining how and why assorted phenomenon exists. While the theory of criminal craving constitutes a new suggestion within the criminological field, it is by no means an innovative theory.

The ideas from two popular theories were collective and somewhat distorted in an attempt that on condition, that a better justification of criminal actions. The first theory drawn upon is Sutherland’s (1949:75-77) degree of different connection. According to differential organization, criminal behavior is learned just like any other behavior through relations with others. Associations, as Sutherland called them, result in the devolution of definitions either constructive or adverse to the commit of breach of law.

Eventually, a person becomes criminal due to an overindulgence of definitions favorable to the defiance of law. Alongside the lines of discrepancy organization (Sutherland 1949) the theory of criminal craving holds that every human action is learned through relations with the surroundings. Nevertheless, the knowledge procedure is not limited to just personal relations, as is the case with Sutherland’s theory, instead acknowledging the power of both humans and nonhuman objects. The second theory drawn upon in the current formulation is Merton’s (1938) theory of anomie.

This theory involves, dealing between culturally definite goals and what social planning make promising. According to Merton, if such goals are not possible through justifiable practices than those are likely to resort to unlawful resources to accomplish the same goal. In short, overemphasis on material accomplishment and lack of prospect for such success leads to crime. Whereas the idea of Merton’s (1938) theory provides a sufficient rationalization of why some of them individuals turn to crime criticism exists concerning the uncertainty with regard to the meanings behind the terms he employed.

As such, the theory of criminal craving expands on the concepts recognized by Merton by providing sufficient explanations of them as well as classifying each one as cultured phenomena. In addition, desire is planned as the source of demonstration, thus leading one to commit crime, when the culturally defined goals of people cannot be achieved throughout justifiable process. Though sharing common life traditions, human beings are eventually molded by the surroundings in which they live. Certain aspects of the body may function naturally but most actions are not natural.

Instead children are born as empty slates sooner or later learning to walk, talk, and act like humans. As such, humans start as neither good nor evil and are sooner or later forced into one of the two categories through a mixture of heredity and more importantly their surroundings (Seville 1990). It is understood by the theory of criminal craving that only one aspect of a natural human nature can be recognized, desire. In spite of, of natural make-up there exists in every person a subconscious need to yearn for goods not in their possession.

However, the specifics of what will be most wanted ultimately rest in the surroundings in which one lives. Through personal and impersonal acquaintances, a person develops an acceptance as to what he or she should accomplish. Once the goal or goals have been recognized within the human being, their natural desire begins to take over. While the desires for something increase so do the obligations for obtaining them. Powerlessness to please the craving eventually leads to its strengthening until it finally consumes the person. Once this occurs the person no longer cares how they will accomplish their craving normally turning to crime.

Therefore, criminal behavior is not a result of bad genes or a natural human environment to diverge, but environmentally defined goals and a failure to accomplish those goals, though justifiable means, due to socially controlled opportunity. According to Jerome Skolnick, a distinction could also be made between neighborhood-based gangs and industrial gangs. Neighborhood-based (Cultural) gangs are a more customary type of street gang and is territory leaning. Defending the ‘hood (neighborhood) is a primary ambition, as is socializing. Entrepreneurial gangs are oriented in the direction of the, charge of criminal acts for earnings.

Skolnick believes some neighborhood gangs are developing into commercial gangs. Gangster disciples are Cultural gangs that are turning to an manufacturing gangs. Because of the drugs and trafficking that they participate in. To compare effectively and contrast theories developed by Sutherland or Merton, in regard to John Gotti; each one of their theories of John Gotti’s incorporated the two gangs distinguished by Jerome Skolnick and his colleagues, focusing on the Gangster Disciples. Gotti was the fifth of 13 children and the family’s income was not very surprising because of the labor work his father obtained.

The living measures of the family were unsteady because of the regular moves made, until the family at last moved to East New York, where there area was very well known for youth’s gang activity. By the age of 12 Gotti, errand a living by working for one of the largest of the five organized crime families in that area. Not long after that he become a gang boss for the Fulton-Rockaway boys also very well known for car-jacking and robbers. Gotti was known for a bully at a very young age and had authority issues in school; he dropped out by the age of 16.

Not long after, dropping out of high School he continued with a life of crime on a full- time basis. Soon came the arrests for street fighting, public intoxication, and car theft. Before turning 21 he had been arrested at least five times, though he did not spend much time in jail. Gotti added murder to his list of crimes in 1973 and in 1985, he made Mob boss. He was convicted of murder and racketeering in April 1992. During his criminal extravaganzas, as the mob boss he made $500 million in profits due to illegal activities, which included gambling, drug trafficking, extortion, and stock fraud.

REFERENCES

Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social structure and anomie. ” American Sociological Review 3:672-682. Sutherland, Edwin H. 1949. White Collar Crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Organized Crime Gricelda Vargas CJ350 NOVEMBER 27, 2012 MR. MARK ROSENFIELD Organized Crime There is no generally accepted definition of organized crime yet, due mostly to the rapid development and shifting of the forms in which organized crime appears. Since high professionalism, organization and nearly boundless financial means are characteristic for organized crime, the circumstances in this field are constantly irritating.

The earnings represent an ever increasing danger for the State and the Society, since organized crime invests them on one side in entirely legal business – money laundry; while on the other side they characterize an enormous fraud to be expected. This is the reason why a political question appears here, namely, how a certain society can take care of the safety of its inhabitants and it’s State as an organization. Corruption and organized crime are serious criminal phenomena, but they are also much more than that.

Not only is organized crime an obstruction to national development and globalization, but with its links to terrorist groups all over the world. It’s become a threat to national security to the United States, and opening Societies. The threat that these actions of organized crime presents is compounded because worldwide criminal organizations often act with the tacit or explicit support of state authorities. Throughout the history of criminological thought, various theories on crime causation have been formulated. Unfortunately, many questions as to why individuals commit crime still remain unanswered.

Wilson and Hernstein (1985) argue such a phenomenon is due to bad theories yielding incomplete views about the world. This can be explained, in this writer’s opinion, by a lack of integration among the major theorists of past and present instead choosing to limit the search for answers within the realm of their chosen perspective. By combining the ideas expressed by the concepts of differential association (Sutherland 1949) and anomie (Merton 1938) the present theory attempts to provide a more accurate and exhaustive explanation as to why some individuals commit crime where others do not.

The first fragment of this paper briefly explains the workings of a good theory. Furthermore, the sources from which the theory of criminal craving draws upon are outlined specifying any changes or improvements made. The next section presents the assumptions made about human personality disagreeing only one instinctive human feature exists, craving, and even that is eventually formed by the situation. The concepts associated with the theory, the causal process involving craving to criminal behavior, and a list of propositions tying the abovementioned concepts to one another are existing.

Continuing, an outline of the three main hypotheses connected with the theory of criminal desire is presented along with an rationalization of its falsifiability. The theory’s broad historical context and strong clarifying power is then discussed followed by a portrayal of the various criminal justice policy implications brought into light. THEORY Merton (1967:39) theory “refers to reasonable organized sets of propositions from which observed uniformities can be consequential. ” In regards to what constitutes a good theory Sutton and Staw (1995) argue that a general lack in concurrence exists among scholars.

While this is true, a general theme can be practical in the literature. Social scientists primarily agree that the explanation principle of any theory includes justification and calculation. This is accomplished through the use of concepts planned in such a way that causal associations are anticipated explaining how and why assorted phenomenon exists. While the theory of criminal craving constitutes a new suggestion within the criminological field, it is by no means an innovative theory.

The ideas from two popular theories were collective and somewhat distorted in an attempt that on condition, that a better justification of criminal actions. The first theory drawn upon is Sutherland’s (1949:75-77) degree of different connection. According to differential organization, criminal behavior is learned just like any other behavior through relations with others. Associations, as Sutherland called them, result in the devolution of definitions either constructive or adverse to the commit of breach of law.

Eventually, a person becomes criminal due to an overindulgence of definitions favorable to the defiance of law. Alongside the lines of discrepancy organization (Sutherland 1949) the theory of criminal craving holds that every human action is learned through relations with the surroundings. Nevertheless, the knowledge procedure is not limited to just personal relations, as is the case with Sutherland’s theory, instead acknowledging the power of both humans and nonhuman objects. The second theory drawn upon in the current formulation is Merton’s (1938) theory of anomie.

This theory involves, dealing between culturally definite goals and what social planning make promising. According to Merton, if such goals are not possible through justifiable practices than those are likely to resort to unlawful resources to accomplish the same goal. In short, overemphasis on material accomplishment and lack of prospect for such success leads to crime. Whereas the idea of Merton’s (1938) theory provides a sufficient rationalization of why some of them individuals turn to crime criticism exists concerning the uncertainty with regard to the meanings behind the terms he employed.

As such, the theory of criminal craving expands on the concepts recognized by Merton by providing sufficient explanations of them as well as classifying each one as cultured phenomena. In addition, desire is planned as the source of demonstration, thus leading one to commit crime, when the culturally defined goals of people cannot be achieved throughout justifiable process. Though sharing common life traditions, human beings are eventually molded by the surroundings in which they live. Certain aspects of the body may function naturally but most actions are not natural.

Instead children are born as empty slates sooner or later learning to walk, talk, and act like humans. As such, humans start as neither good nor evil and are sooner or later forced into one of the two categories through a mixture of heredity and more importantly their surroundings (Seville 1990). It is understood by the theory of criminal craving that only one aspect of a natural human nature can be recognized, desire. In spite of, of natural make-up there exists in every person a subconscious need to yearn for goods not in their possession.

However, the specifics of what will be most wanted ultimately rest in the surroundings in which one lives. Through personal and impersonal acquaintances, a person develops an acceptance as to what he or she should accomplish. Once the goal or goals have been recognized within the human being, their natural desire begins to take over. While the desires for something increase so do the obligations for obtaining them. Powerlessness to please the craving eventually leads to its strengthening until it finally consumes the person. Once this occurs the person no longer cares how they will accomplish their craving normally turning to crime.

Therefore, criminal behavior is not a result of bad genes or a natural human environment to diverge, but environmentally defined goals and a failure to accomplish those goals, though justifiable means, due to socially controlled opportunity. According to Jerome Skolnick, a distinction could also be made between neighborhood-based gangs and industrial gangs. Neighborhood-based (Cultural) gangs are a more customary type of street gang and is territory leaning. Defending the ‘hood (neighborhood) is a primary ambition, as is socializing. Entrepreneurial gangs are oriented in the direction of the, charge of criminal acts for earnings.

Skolnick believes some neighborhood gangs are developing into commercial gangs. Gangster disciples are Cultural gangs that are turning to an manufacturing gangs. Because of the drugs and trafficking that they participate in. To compare effectively and contrast theories developed by Sutherland or Merton, in regard to John Gotti; each one of their theories of John Gotti’s incorporated the two gangs distinguished by Jerome Skolnick and his colleagues, focusing on the Gangster Disciples. Gotti was the fifth of 13 children and the family’s income was not very surprising because of the labor work his father obtained.

The living measures of the family were unsteady because of the regular moves made, until the family at last moved to East New York, where there area was very well known for youth’s gang activity. By the age of 12 Gotti, errand a living by working for one of the largest of the five organized crime families in that area. Not long after that he become a gang boss for the Fulton-Rockaway boys also very well known for car-jacking and robbers. Gotti was known for a bully at a very young age and had authority issues in school; he dropped out by the age of 16.

Not long after, dropping out of high School he continued with a life of crime on a full- time basis. Soon came the arrests for street fighting, public intoxication, and car theft. Before turning 21 he had been arrested at least five times, though he did not spend much time in jail. Gotti added murder to his list of crimes in 1973 and in 1985, he made Mob boss. He was convicted of murder and racketeering in April 1992. During his criminal extravaganzas, as the mob boss he made $500 million in profits due to illegal activities, which included gambling, drug trafficking, extortion, and stock fraud.