There is a large profit that can result from drug trafficking, which could be one of the reasons behind the crime not always being viewed under a zero tolerance policy. The global crimes that have become some of the largest issues previously mentioned always make the implication that some sort of organized crime has occurred or is occurring. A problem that arises when organized crimes occur is that there are often “crooked” police officers who handle the law unfairly among certain suspects or criminals. Another issue in drug trafficking is that sometimes, groups of organized crimes all link to a business or business people. One other issue for drug and human trafficking crimes is border security and safety.
However, drug smuggling and weapons trafficking are also quite common. I believe that organized crime groups nearly always use legitimate businesses as a front to cover up their illegal operations; such as trash collecting, pizza parlors, and ice cream trucks. In a way, these groups thrive off of the people in their community, while the community is completely unaware of what’s going on.
However subcultural theorists developed this idea claiming that people experiencing strain seek different forms of success. More specifically Cloward and Ohlin put forward the idea of the 'illegitimate opportunity structure’, which they used to explain subcultural crime. This structure was operable outside of the mainstream structure and ultimately lead to the attainment of success and money through deviant means. For example, Cloward and Ohlin argued that organized crimes such as the drugs trade could be explained by failures in mainstream capitalism. Cloward and Ohlin argue, that the majority of criminals involved in the drugs trade were unable to succeed within capitalism and were driven to an illegitimate means of obtaining wealth.
Many believe that a government without limits will turn into a government that acts in ways that will disregard the rights of all in all circumstances (Zalman, M. (2008). Those who support the crime control model, however, indicate that these protections hinder law enforcement investigation and allow defendants more privacy than victims are allowed “Crime control emphasizes an efficient criminal process through early determination of guilt by law enforcement agents” and the Fourth Amendment prevents this (Cornell,
Further, because most hate-crime legislation puts added effort into prosecuting crimes against certain individuals or groups, what about the same crimes committed against someone who doesn't fit into one of those groups? Will the crime be prosecuted to the same extent? If not, you're making things worse for the majority, who are likely to feel underprotected. If the problem is that too many people (of any group) are being mugged, or assaulted, or their belongings vandalized, you should put more effort into prosecuting muggings, assaults, or vandalism. Not to protect any one group, but to protect all
Durkheim went on to say that crime isn’t only inevitable, it can also be functional. Durkheim argued that it only becomes dysfunctional (harmful to society) when its rate is unusually high or law. He argued that all social change begins with some form of deviance. In order for change to occur, yesterday’s deviance must become today’s normality. Since a certain amount of change is good for society (so that it can progress rather than stagnate), so is deviance.
Organized crime members will kill innocent people just as the street gangs do. When it comes to crime there is not a gentleman's code of conduct. The only difference between organized crime and a street gang is the fact that crimes within a criminal organization are often not publicized and are kept private. A street gang will often boast of killings and crimes to see that the gang is recognized and the members responsible are promoted within the ranks of the gang. Law enforcement must understand that they are already at disadvantage when it comes to combating organized crime.
During times of war, it is understandable that the Government will be more apt to protect its people. In the United States, terrorism has become a major concern. This has come to light more recently after the 9/11 attack in 2004. Americans have been told that terrorism is their biggest enemy. Though in the attempts to obtain security, the people of the United States are giving up their freedoms and others are having those same freedoms taken away from them.
By denying immigrants the means to arrive in the country legally, conservative immigration policies have created unmonitored channels of travel that are open not only to immigrants, but terrorists as well. Smuggling people across the border for a fee is a lucrative business, and the punishment if caught is less harsh than that for smuggling drugs. Ironically, this problem of their own making has only increased hatred for illegal immigrants, who are blamed for compromising border security. Typically, the conservative response has been to advocate for policies that would only treat the symptoms of the problem rather than solving it, by funneling money into increasing border patrols and constructing a wall along the border with Mexico. Somehow, this costly and wholly unnecessary program is preferable to the simple solution of allowing immigrants to come in legally, allowing us to better monitor and control who enters the
With the majority of street criminals with not much resources or power to conceal or distort the extent of the illegal actions, as corporate criminals have in their disposal, they are more prone to public attention and focus. Corporate crime is commonly well organized and often has a long list of victims that can include consumers, stockholders, employees, and competing businesses. This focus on street crime has had a profound effect on the different social classes and racial groups in the United States. The continued heavy focus on street crime