Models of Organized Crime Executive Summary Gene Schuldt CJA/384 10/20/2014 Thomas Borton Models of Organized Crime Executive Summary This paper is a summary about models of organized criminal. It will explain the difference between bureaucratic and patron client relations within the organized criminal activity. It will include summaries and differences between main models in organized crime and examples to understand the difference. The patron client relations is based on the social participation and mutual respect within the community and the lower-level client that is not directly affiliated with the organized criminal activity but yet associated through the mutual support within the criminal structure. Individuals within the patron-client relationship are at a lower-level, by committing the same acts within the community but are not directly related to the organized criminal organization by involvement within the company.
So when applying social institution status on organized crime is because organized crime exhibits the same characteristics as some of the examples giving for social institutions. Again organized crime does the opposite of what the other social institution have done and continue to do, but it does resemble the same traits in producing productive criminal individuals for the organizations. For this reason many persons are drawn to organized crime because it exhibits value for those persons, whereas in other areas those persons feel rejected (Lyman & Potter, 2007). The next part of
At that point the main leaders would contact the crews to have that individual do the job needed for the whole organization. Another difference of these two came in the results. Even though both of these organizations were successful the bureaucratic was more efficient when it came to getting results from a crime. While on the other hand the patron-client model was way more efficient at avoiding detection from the police while running a criminal organization. These two models have both similarities and differences, but both proved to be a successful way to run an organized crime
In a bureaucratic organization the finger and blame gets put on the financial burdens and leaders as to in a patron-client organization all of the members are responsible and held accountable for either failure or success (WeeKoh, 2009). I see after the readings and studies that a patron-client or bureaucratic organization both have one main goal in mind whether a legal organization or illegal and that is to be successful and gain profit and or power. Both groups have many similarities the main difference is the leniency of what the members on the bottom can do without pre approval and how and who
Deviance, on the other hand, is behaviour which moves away from conventional norms and values such as burping and farting in public. If what is considered to be crime and deviance changes, it can’t be inherently wrong but must be culturally specific. Emile Durkheim speaks of crime as being functional to society. According to item A, ‘the publicity given to crime highlights the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.' Durkheim expands on this saying we are aware of these boundaries following social reactions to deviance.
The patron-client offers the advantages of continuity when the leader is incapacitated, as a patron will assume the position. The patron-client model is less centralized and has lass control over subordinates than the bureaucratic model (Adabinsky, 2003: p 41). With the patron-client model, the patron has the power to generate income by networking with other clients involved in criminal activities like, drug trafficking, fraudulent activities and money laundering. A patron has informants and connections within the police and other officials and with those who are in special criminal operatives. A patron will also have areas or industries to dominate (Abadinsky, 2007).
The Functionalist approach to the study of crime states that crime has two positive functions for society. Durkheim claims that crime retains boundary maintenance. He states that crime produces a reaction from society, effectively uniting its members in condemnation of the wrongdoer and reinforcing their commitment to the shared norms and values. Secondly, he claims that all acts of social change start with an act of deviance, so in the long run deviant tendencies will give rise to a new culture and morality. For example, the wishing for African-American rights in America included several acts of deviance by breaking several laws yet it paved the way for the Civil Rights Movement.
There is also agreement on an adversary system, procedural due process, and one’s day in court (Zalman, 2008). The most important function of the crime control model is as stated by Packer (1968), ‘the repression of criminal conduct by the criminal process’” “because public safety is essential to personal freedom” (Zalman, 2008, p. 5). The presumption surrounded by this value system is, in American society there will be a breakdown of public order if law enforcement does not keep a tight reign on criminals and their activities, and citizens of this
Organized Crime Prevention and Control As one author put it, “organized crime has been defined in the relative absence of Knowledge” about its true dimensions (Castle, 2008, p. 139). Albanese (1996) explains crime and possible organized crime in terms of the typologies of positivism, classicism, structural, and ethical explanations. The positive approach explains organized crime as caused by social and economic factors that include: poor neighborhoods and role models, lack of opportunity to achieve the “American Dream,” dysfunctional families, and even genetics. The positivist sees change in the conditions as a means to prevent criminal behavior. Walter Miller’s classic article “Ideology and Criminal Justice Policy” concluded with the observation, “when assertions are made about what measures best serve the purposes of securing order, justice, and the public welfare, one should ask, ‘How do we know this?’” (1973, p. 150).
It is hard to say which model has had more impact because the success of both models has been tremendous and while both models are different, they each obtain certain results that have allowed the organization to maintain status in the world of organized crime. Columbian drug cartels and the Hell’s Angels…what do these two groups have in common? Both of these organizations have based their whole operation on the model of the bureaucratic approach. One thing that can be seen in these groups that cannot be seen in some other groups is their organization. Bureaucratic organizations have designed their organizations to simulate an actual business.