Herbert Alexander and Gerald E. Caiden (1985) The Politics and
Economics of Organized Crime Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
In the short run, nothing much will be effective against
organized crime unless some long term responses are in place:
1. Political corruption has to be eliminated. Without
political corruption, organized crime loses much of its
protection.
2. Strengthen professionalism in law enforcement.
3. Law enforcement coordination is a must, on an international
level.
4. Develop central data banks on an international basis.
Organized crime no longer knows international boundaries.
5. Illegal markets need to be made unprofitable:
a. supply - crack down on supply lines, distributors, make
the cost go up by stopping the supply of drugs; this
has not worked well because demand is so high, so both
are needed.
b. demand - the high level of lawlessness in America is
due to the fact that Americans love to do things that
they also desire to prohibit; it is not the supply of
criminals, it is the demand for deviant goods and
services that is the real problem.
6. The public has to be educated on the full extent of
organized crime and made aware of its terrible costs in
lives and dollars.
7. More research into organized crime, its structure,
techniques, and its impact on society is needed so police
will know how to respond. Questions like, what is the next
hot drug? Where are the drugs being grown? How is this mob
group organized? How are they getting the drugs/diamonds/
chemicals, etc. into the country? What is the latest
technique in money laundering? What are mobs doing with
their money these days? Furniture business hot for a while.
Some short term ideas are also proposed. In short, Alexander and
Caiden suggest that the police must engage in dirty tricks. If
they don't and police play by the rules, the mob will win. There
are no absolute rules out there. Intimidation is the weapon of
organized crime. Its leaders can be superficially courteous, but
compassion is reserved for some family and true friends, not for
business associates, not for the general public, not for the
police. Alexander and Caiden propose the following specific
ideas:
1. Plant undercover agents (i.e., deceive and lie).
2. Become a friend with the presumed targets.
3. Make contracts and work with the organized crime syndicate
to kill off particularly bad guys.
4. If necessary, engage in selected acts of deviance/crime. In
other words, assassinate particular people or as in point
#3, pay to have someone killed.
5. Use proactive selected target tactics. Go after one person
or one organization at a time and really go after them. No
holds barred.
General problems with their ideas:
1. Moral problems - Machiavellian ends/means argument. Is the
government justified in going after people for using tactics
that the government itself is using against those very
people? Consider the words of Justice Louis D. Brandeis -
"In a government of laws, the existence of the government
will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law
scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipotent
teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by
its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds a
contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto
himself. It invites anarchy." But if government plays by
the rules, the mob will win!
2. Often, the hunters begin to sympathize with the hunted and
join with them as a partner, or at least as a double agent.
Vice, narcotics and gambling squads are notoriously prone to
compromise and corruption. Insurance assessors, business
regulators and auditors are just as susceptible.
3. Organized crime has a trump card - it can go over the head
of the police and buy off prosecutors and/or judges. Only
one weak link destroys the value of the chain.
4. Organized crime and law enforcement co-exist. Mutual though
begrudged co-existence. They both need each other because
they both need information and protection. Open warfare
between the two serves nobody's interest.
5. Eliminate political corruption? While we are at it, let us
stop cold north winds from blowing in January. This is
nothing but a feel good, political platitude that has no
place in an academic treatise. It is true, just as having
no cold north winds in January would make Nebraska a nicer
place to live, but there is nothing that can be done about
it.