Organized Crime Essay Research Paper Donald Creesey

Organized Crime Essay, Research Paper

Donald Creesey was a pioneer in the study of organized crime. He was

also considered the first expert on the subject. However, his contributions to the

field are now in question. In the next two articles a battle of words is waged

between Joseph L. Albini, author of “Donald Cressey’s Contributions to the

Study of Organized Crime An Evaluation”, and Charles H. Rogovin along with

Frederick T. Martens, authors of “The Evil That Men Do”, concerning Cressey’s

actual accomplishments.

First of all, a brief introduction to each of the authors’ credentials is

needed to add respectability to his opinion on what Cressey has done. Joseph L.

Albini has a doctorate in the field of criminal justice and is currently 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. Lastly, he is a member of the International

Association for the Study of Organized Crime.

The next author 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.sum. also includes the

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

Crime.

The final author, Frederick T. Martens is Director of Security at Claridge

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

Pennsylvania Crime Commission, and Lieutenant Supervisor of the New Jersey

State Police organized crime unit.

All three authors are well-respected authorities in the field of organized

crime, therefore their opinions do deserve some weight when voiced in the

matter of organized crime and Donald Cressey. Although the articles are in

direct contrast with one another, each authors’ opinion must be considered

before refuting it.

The article composed by Albini is a critical evaluation of Donald Cressey’s

work. Within the pages of the article are numerous reasons why Cressey was

wrong in the conclusions he arrived at and how he was careless in his research

to attain those conclusions. Throughout the article Albini makes allegations of

ignorance and utter disregard for information directed toward Cressey that would

refute the very conclusions Cressey has been heralded for reaching.

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

same conclusions which Albini criticizes. They continually find and state

examples of how they feel Albini to be wrong and Cressey to be correct. They

have determined that Albini’s article has no foundation and no merit, which leads

Into the effectiveness and correctness of Cressey.

To start off the criticisms by Albini of Cressey, Albini claims that Cressey

feared for his life. Albini attributes this fear to Cressey’s “unquestioning and, in

many cases, uncritical acceptance of the government data.” He, being Albini,

protests that Cressey warned him once of the dangers of pursuing his research

in the field of organized crime. He did not fault Cressey for this fear, but later on

in Albini’s own research, he claims to have discovered that there was never any

need for fear, organized crime held no ill will toward researchers.

Rogovin disputes this claim by Albini by explaining that his encounters

with Cressey never once left him with any impression that Cressey ever felt any

danger, what so ever, from organized crime due to the information he uncovered.

Rogovin continues along this line of rebuttal by referring to Cressey’s sense of

humor. He states that if ever Cressey made a comment to Albini suggesting for

him to be wary of his own safety, it must have been in jest.

Another of Albini’s complaints with Cresseys’ views was that he seemed

highly dependent on Joseph Valachi, the first member of organized crime to

testify under oath about the inner workings of the underworld. Albini claims that

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

composing his report for the Presidents Commission. Even though Cressey

himself claimed that Valachi “will tell you only what he thinks you want to

hear.” Albini surely believes that this misleading information received by

Cressy led to his faulty conclusions.

Rogovin and Marten state that they feels it ludicrous and near immature

for Albini to truly believe that Cressey, a very well educated man would be

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

being the excellent, skilled, and cautious listener he was would have been able

to peer through the mendacious exterior of Valachi, and get to the truthfulness

behind it.

Albini claims that Cressey has committed three grievous errors in reaching

his conclusions. The first being, he was

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать