Organized Crime Essay, Research Paper

Donald Creesey was a innovator in the survey of organized offense. He was

besides considered the first expert on the topic. However, his parts to the

field are now in inquiry. In the following two articles a conflict of words is waged

between Joseph L. Albini, writer of & # 8220 ; Donald Cressey & # 8217 ; s Contributions to the

Study of Organized Crime An Evaluation & # 8221 ; , and Charles H. Rogovin along with

Frederick T. Martens, writers of & # 8220 ; The Evil That Men Do & # 8221 ; , refering Cressey & # 8217 ; s

existent achievements.

First of wholly, a brief debut to each of the writers & # 8217 ; certificates is

needed to add reputability to his sentiment on what Cressey has done. Joseph L.

Albini has a doctor’s degree in the field of condemnable justness and is presently a professor at

the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Albini is the Co-Director of the Joint

Russian-American Academic Committee for the Promotion of the Study of

Comparative Criminal Justice. Last, he is a member of the International

Association for the Study of Organized Crime.

The following writer to be introduced is Charles H. Rogovin. Rogovin is

employed as a professor at Temple University Law School, Philadelphia. He was

Vice Chair of the Pennsylvania Crime Commission. His R? amount? besides includes the

place of President of the International Association for the Study of Organized

Crime.

The concluding writer, Frederick T. Martens is Director of Security at Claridge

Casino, Atlantic City, New Jersey. He was, at one clip, Executive Director of the

Pennsylvania Crime Commission, and Lieutenant Supervisor of the New Jersey

State Police organized offense unit.

All three writers are well-respected governments in the field of organized

offense, therefore their sentiments do merit some weight when voiced in the

affair of organized offense and Donald Cressey. Although the articles are in

direct contrast with one another, each writers & # 8217 ; sentiment must be considered

before rebuting it.

The article composed by Albini is a critical rating of Donald Cressey & # 8217 ; s

work. Within the pages of the article are legion grounds why Cressey was

incorrect in the decisions he arrived at and how he was careless in his research

to achieve those decisions. Throughout the article Albini makes allegations of

ignorance and arrant neglect for information directed toward Cressey that would

rebut the very decisions Cressey has been heralded for making.

In contrast, Rogovin and Martens derived an article that supports the

same decisions which Albini criticizes. They continually find and province

illustrations of how they feel Albini to be incorrect and Cressey to be right. They

hold determined that Albini & # 8217 ; s article has no foundation and no virtue, which leads

Into the effectivity and rightness of Cressey.

To get down off the unfavorable judgments by Albini of Cressey, Albini claims that Cressey

feared for his life. Albini attributes this fright to Cressey & # 8217 ; s & # 8220 ; unquestioning and, in

many instances, noncritical credence of the authorities data. & # 8221 ; He, being Albini,

protests that Cressey warned him one time of the dangers of prosecuting his research

in the field of organized offense. He did non blame Cressey for this fright, but subsequently on

in Albini & # 8217 ; s ain research, he claims to hold discovered that there was ne’er any

demand for fright, organized offense held no ailment will toward research workers.

Rogovin disputes this claim by Albini by explicating that his brushs

with Cressey ne’er one time left him with any feeling that Cressey of all time felt any

danger, what so of all time, from organized offense due to the information he uncovered.

Rogovin continues along this line of rebuttal by mentioning to Cressey & # 8217 ; s sense of

wit. He states that if of all time Cressey made a remark to Albini proposing for

him to be wary of his ain safety, it must hold been in joke.

Another of Albini & # 8217 ; s ailments with Cresseys & # 8217 ; positions was that he seemed

extremely dependent on Joseph Valachi, the first member of organized offense to

attest under curse about the interior workings of the underworld. Albini claims that

Cressey accepted whatever Valachi said as fact, no inquiries asked, while

composing his study for the Presidents Commission. Even though Cressey

himself claimed that Valachi & # 8220 ; will state you merely what he thinks you want to

hear. & # 8221 ; Albini certainly believes that this deceptive information received by

Cressy led to his faulty decisions.

Rogovin and Marten province that they feels it farcical and close immature

for Albini to truly believe that Cressey, a really good educated adult male would be

bamboozled by the likes of Valachi. Rogovin and Martens believe that Cressy

being the excellent, skilled, and cautious hearer he was would hold been able

to peer through the mendacious outside of Valachi, and acquire to the truthfulness

behind it.

Albini claims that Cressey has committed three dangerous mistakes in making

his decisions. The first be

ing, he was missing an accurate definition for

researching intents. Albini maintains that throughout all of Cressey & # 8217 ; s work,

Cressey ne’er established a proper definition of organized offense. Albini asserts

this deficiency of definition as to what limited Cressey & # 8216 ; s research, and hence to his

inaccurate decision. The 2nd mistake Cressey committed was he failed to

critically measure his informations. Albini recognizes where the information came from

that was presented to Cressey, but still feels if Cressy had taken into history the

differences and prejudices of those who offered the information to the Task Force

and to Cressey separately, his decision would hold turned out otherwise.

The 3rd of Albini & # 8217 ; s major grudges is that Cressey presents a really limited

background and history of the Mafia in Sicily. Albini alleges the Mafia in Sicily

ne’er acted as a secret organisation. He claims that if Cressey had read the

bing stuff available so he would non hold presented this flawed

statement.

Rogovin and Martens respond to these statements by Albini in this manner.

First to the suggestion that Cressey & # 8217 ; s definition was the ruin to his

probes, Rogovin and Martens make it sound as though all else has failed

for Albini, so the lone option left to him is to assail the definition. They claim

that although a precise definition would be utile, it is non necessary. The

significance of the findings is far more of import so the definition itself. They

both feel that the quality of Cressey & # 8217 ; s stuff exceeds any thing a deficiency of

definition could perchance impede. Rogovin and Martens exposing how the

authorities was incorrect in measuring the being of organized offense in the yesteryear

respond to the 2nd averment that Cressey didn & # 8217 ; t critically measure the information he

received. They site illustrations of strong beliefs that have taken topographic point in courtrooms

and how the federal authorities itself had to eventually admit the presence of

a condemnable underworld. The tierce of three major ailments by Albini is one of the

few, if non merely indicate agreed upon by all writers. The absence of a proper

historical background is apparent in Cressy & # 8217 ; s publication, Theft of the Nation.

However, Rogovin and Martens defend Cressey by doing the point that he was

most likely depending upon experts in other countries and that they misled him in to

being mistaken about the historical positions.

Albini concludes his statements by stating that Cressey has given

persons in the field of organized offense a theoretical account to work from. Even if the

theoretical account is non the right theoretical account in Albini & # 8217 ; s eyes, however its still something for

others to larn from. For scientists, the incorrect reply must be found legion

clip before the right reply can be uncovered. Albini merely feels Cressey & # 8217 ; s theoretical account

and thoughts are merely that & # 8230 ; another incorrect reply assisting to happen the right 1.

Rogivin was enraged by the fact that Albini ne’er voiced these concerns

about Cressey & # 8217 ; s positions while Cressey was alive to support himself and his thoughts.

Another job that Rogovin and Martens have with Albini & # 8217 ; s article is that he

does precisely what he claims Cressey has done: relying on and locating the comments

made by Dintino. Rogivin and Martens protest that this is where & # 8220 ; Albini is at his

worst. & # 8221 ; They conclude their article by doing the statement that, & # 8220 ; Cressey & # 8217 ; s

theoretical account of organized offense has stood the trial of time. & # 8221 ; They besides add that there is

far more work to be done in the survey of organized offense. Either new thoughts are

traveling to hold to be formulated or else the sort of article that Albini has written

will go on to start up in different signifiers for old ages to come. Rogovin and Martens

seemingly took discourtesy to the positions presented by Albini. Throughout the article

were mentions to his ignorance, intelligence, instruction, or deficiency thereof.

These two articles could non be more different in context, manner, thought, and

how the thoughts were presented to the reader. The article by Rogovin and Martens

was written direct response to the first article by Albini. Albini & # 8217 ; s article was merely

written as a affair of sentiment, alternatively of a reaction to an sentiment. That did do

an extremely big difference in the content and character of each article, and

that is what the differences in each can be attributed to & # 8230 ; the timing of the

publications.

Albini, Joseph L. & # 8220 ; Donald Cressey & # 8217 ; s Contributions to the Study of Organized Crime An Evaluation. & # 8221 ; As found in Understanding Organized Crime in Global Perspective. Ryan, Patrick, and Rush, George. Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 1997. Pp. 16-25

Rogovin, Charles H. and Martens, Frederick T. & # 8220 ; The Evil That Men Do. & # 8221 ; As found in Understanding Organized Crime in Global Perspective. Ryan, Patrick, and Rush, George. Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 1997. Pp. 26-36

Understanding Organized Crime in Global Perspective. Ryan, Patrick, and Rush, George. Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 1997