#5

Models of organized crime[edit]

Various models have been proposed to describe the structure of criminal organizations.

Organizational[edit]

American Mafia mobster Sam Giancana

Patron-client networks[edit]

Patron-client networks are defined by fluid interactions. They produce crime groups that operate as smaller units within the overall network, and as such tend towards valuing significant others, the familiarity of social and economic environments, or tradition. These networks are usually composed of:

Hierarchies based on 'naturally' forming family, social and cultural traditions;

'Tight-knit' focus of activity/labor;

Fraternal or nepotistic value systems;

Personalized activity; including family rivalries, territorial disputes, recruitment and training of family members, etc.;

Entrenched belief systems, the reliance on tradition (including religion, family values, cultural expectations, class politics, gender roles, etc.); and,

Communication and rule enforcement mechanisms are dependent on organizational structure\, social etiquette\, history of criminal involvement\, and collective decision-making.[18][19][20][21][22]

Bureaucratic/corporate operations[edit]

Bureaucratic/corporate organized crime groups are defined by the general rigidity of their internal structures. They focus more on how the operations works, succeeds, sustains itself, or avoids retribution, they are generally typified by:

A complex authority structure;

An extensive division of labor between classes within the organization;

Meritocratic (as opposed to cultural or social attributes);

Responsibilities carried out in an impersonal manner;

Extensive written rules/regulations (as opposed to cultural praxis dictating action); and,

'Top-down' communication and rule enforcement mechanisms.

However, this model of operation has some flaws:

The 'top-down' communication strategy is susceptible to interception, more so further down the hierarchy being communicated to;

Maintaining written records jeopardizes the security of the organization and relies on increased security measures;

Infiltration at lower levels in the hierarchy can jeopardize the entire organization (a 'house of cards' effect); and,

Death, injury, incarceration, or internal power struggles dramatically heighten the insecurity of operations.

While bureaucratic operations emphasize business processes and strongly authoritarian hierarchies\, these are based on enforcing power relationships rather than an overlying aim of protectionism\, sustainability\, or growth.[23][24][25][26]

Youth and street gangs[edit]

Main article: Gang

Jamaican gang leader Christopher CokeAn estimate on youth street gangs nationwide provided by Hannigan\, et al.\, marked an increase of 35% between 2002 and 2010.[27] A distinctive gang culture underpins many\, but not all\, organized groups;[28][29] This may develop through recruiting strategies\, social learning processes in the corrective system experienced by youth\, family or peer involvement in crime\, and the coercive actions of criminal authority figures. The term “street gang” is commonly used interchangeably with “youth gang\,” referring to neighborhood or street-based youth groups that meet “gang” criteria. Miller (1992) defines a street gang as “a self-formed association of peers\, united by mutual interests\, with identifiable leadership and internal organization\, who act collectively or as individuals to achieve specific purposes\, including the conduct of illegal activity and control of a particular territory\, facility\, or enterprise."[30] Some reasons youth join gangs include feeling accepted\, attain status\, and increase their self-esteem.[31] A sense of unity brings together many of the youth gangs that lack the family aspect at home.

"Zones of transition" are deteriorating neighborhoods with shifting populations.[32][33] In such areas\, the conflict between groups\, fighting\, "turf wars"\, and theft promote solidarity and cohesion.[34] Cohen (1955): working-class teenagers joined gangs due to frustration of inability to achieve status and goals of the middle class; Cloward and Ohlin (1960): blocked opportunity\, but unequal distribution of opportunities lead to creating different types of gangs (that is\, some focused on robbery and property theft\, some on fighting and conflict and some were retreats focusing on drug-taking); Spergel (1966) was one of the first criminologists to focus on evidence-based practice rather than intuition into gang life and culture. Participation in gang-related events during adolescence perpetuates a pattern of maltreatment on their own children years later.[27] Klein (1971) like Spergel studied the effects on members of social workers’ interventions. More interventions actually lead to greater gang participation and solidarity and bonds between members. Downes and Rock (1988) on Parker's analysis: strain theory applies\, labeling theory (from experience with police and courts)\, control theory (involvement in trouble from early childhood and the eventual decision that the costs outweigh the benefits)\, and conflict theories. No ethnic group is more disposed to gang involvement than another\, rather it is the status of being marginalized\, alienated\, or rejected that makes some groups more vulnerable to gang formation\,[35][36][37] and this would also be accounted for in the effect of social exclusion\,[38][39] especially in terms of recruitment and retention. These may also be defined by age (typically youth) or peer group influences\,[40] and the permanence or consistency of their criminal activity. These groups also form their own symbolic identity or public representation which are recognizable by the community at large (include colors\, symbols\, patches\, flags\, and tattoos).

Research has focused on whether the gangs have formal structures\, clear hierarchies\, and leadership in comparison with adult groups\, and whether they are rational in pursuit of their goals\, though positions on structures\, hierarchies\, and defined roles are conflicting. Some studied street gangs involved in drug dealing - finding that their structure and behavior had a degree of organizational rationality.[41] Members saw themselves as organized criminals; gangs were formal-rational organizations\,[42][43][44] Strong organizational structures\, well-defined roles\, and rules that guided members’ behavior. Also a specified and regular means of income (i.e.\, drugs). Padilla (1992) agreed with the two above. However some have found these to be loose rather than well-defined and lacking persistent focus\, there was relatively low cohesion\, few shared goals\, and little organizational structure.[36] Shared norms\, values\, and loyalties were low\, structures "chaotic"\, little role differentiation or clear distribution of labor. Similarly\, the use of violence does not conform to the principles behind protection rackets\, political intimidation\, and drug trafficking activities employed by those adult groups. In many cases\, gang members graduate from youth gangs to highly developed OC groups\, with some already in contact with such syndicates\, and through this\, we see a greater propensity for imitation. Gangs and traditional criminal organizations cannot be universally linked (Decker\, 1998)\,[45][46] however there are clear benefits to both the adult and youth organizations through their association. In terms of structure\, no single crime group is archetypal\, though in most cases there are well-defined patterns of vertical integration (where criminal groups attempt to control the supply and demand)\, as is the case in arms\, sex\, and drug trafficking.

Individual difference[edit]

Entrepreneurial[edit]

The entrepreneurial model looks at either the individual criminal or a smaller group of organized criminals\, that capitalize off the more fluid 'group association of contemporary organized crime.[47] This model conforms to social learning theory or differential association in that there are clear associations and interactions between criminals where knowledge may be shared\, or values enforced\, however\, it is argued that rational choice is not represented in this. The choice to commit a certain act\, or associate with other organized crime groups\, may be seen as much more of an entrepreneurial decision - contributing to the continuation of a criminal enterprise\, by maximizing those aspects that protect or support their own individual gain. In this context\, the role of risk is also easily understandable\,[48][49] however it is debatable whether the underlying motivation should be seen as true entrepreneurship[50] or entrepreneurship as a product of some social disadvantage.

The criminal organization, much in the same way as one would assess pleasure and pain, weighs such factors as a legal, social, and economic risk to determine potential profit and loss from certain criminal activities. This decision-making process rises from the entrepreneurial efforts of the group's members, their motivations, and the environments in which they work. Opportunism is also a key factor – the organized criminal or criminal group is likely to frequently reorder the criminal associations they maintain, the types of crimes they perpetrate, and how they function in the public arena (recruitment, reputation, etc.) to ensure efficiency, capitalization, and protection of their interests.[51]

Multi-model approach[edit]

Culture and ethnicity provide an environment where trust and communication between criminals can be efficient and secure. This may ultimately lead to a competitive advantage for some groups; however, it is inaccurate to adopt this as the only determinant of classification in organized crime. This categorization includes the Sicilian Mafia, ’Ndrangheta, ethnic Chinese criminal groups, Japanese Yakuza (or Boryokudan), Colombian drug trafficking groups, Nigerian organized crime groups, Corsican mafia, Korean criminal groups, and Jamaican posses. From this perspective, organized crime is not a modern phenomenon - the construction of 17th and 18th-century crime gangs fulfill all the present-day criteria of criminal organizations (in opposition to the Alien Conspiracy Theory). These roamed the rural borderlands of central Europe embarking on many of the same illegal activities associated with today's crime organizations, except money laundering. When the French revolution created strong nation-states, the criminal gangs moved to other poorly controlled regions like the Balkans and Southern Italy, where the seeds were sown for the Sicilian Mafia - the linchpin of organized crime in the New World.[52]

Computational approach[edit]

While most of the conceptual frameworks used to model organized crime emphasize the role of actors and/or activities\, computational approaches built on the foundations of data science and Artificial Intelligence are focusing on deriving new insights on organized crime from big data. For example\, novel machine learning models have been applied to study and detect urban crime[53][54] and online prostitution networks.[55][56] Big Data has also been used to develop online tools predicting the risk for an individual to be a victim of the online sex trade or getting drawn into online sex work.[57][58] In addition\, data from Twitter[59] and Google Trends[60] have been used to study the public perceptions of organized crime.

***Download NovelToon to enjoy a better reading experience!***