Organized crime is often cited as the worst form of criminal activity, more so than petty crime or crimes of passion. Rather than extol the virtues of organized crime this essay will be looking at the assumptions people make regarding it and determining their validity. Before proceeding any further I feel a disclaimer is required as I have no experience of actual organized crime. Much of my understanding of the topic is inferred from works of fiction such as Shantaram, The Wire, Sons of Anarchy and so forth. The limitations and more fantastical elements of these fictions are appreciated and so I shall construct my arguments based on logic and common sense rather than observation.
Organized crime is essentially the application of economies of scale to criminal activity. Pack animals work together so that they can catch bigger prey, too large to tackle alone, that offer more returns for their labours than more manageable small prey. While petty criminals might resort to mugging people on the street, such activities do not provide efficient returns to organizations in much the same way that prides of lions don't hunt rodents. It is logical to assume therefore that organized crime only exists in order to perform more complicated or taxing crimes that offer greater returns. The greatest returns are always to be found in areas of higher wealth density, stealing from the rich is more profitable that stealing from the poor. Generally I think it is reasonable to assume that those people who are criminals are more likely to come from poorer backgrounds and more likely to remain in poverty if not involved in crime. While neither of the suggestions that organized crime target the wealthy, nor that criminals are initially poor are universally accurate they are the trend and thus from an overall point of view do form the basis of a valid argument. The argument is simply that organized crime acts as a wealth redistribution mechanism.
Although a narrow wealth gap is certainly advantageous to society it is not the case that this is independent of how it is achieved. Crime of any form can also be obviously detrimental to society and so comparing the benefits of a small wealth gap and offsetting the drawbacks of organized crime is essential before this may be used as a sensible argument in favour of organized crime. Being so driven on a goal, such as a narrow wealth gap, that one turns a blind eye to the manner in which that goal is reached is a treacherous path to tread. I see no sensible way to make a meaningful comparison of the pros and cons of this argument and so the only conclusion that may be drawn is that organized crime has both advantages and disadvantages in society. Nothing may be said regarding the overall benefit, or otherwise, to society that these facets incur.
Criminals are what society constitutes as the spectrum for immorality, excepting infidelity. The terms immoral and moral are misguiding in the sense that they appear as if they should be directly opposed. Amoral and moral are in reality more akin to direct opposites of each other. The amoral person is very rare and I believe the result of biological differences to people with morals and empathy. Those we label as immoral simply have values that lie outside those considered to be socially acceptable by the majority of persons. Morality is a socially democratic and culturally evolved phenomenon. This is because although morals can based on certain principles, such as freedom, without a predetermined foundation no absolute morality can be defined. Criminals can be relied on about as much as a law abiding citizen to have some degree of morals, albeit differing ones. This does not however make criminal activity moral or acceptable in society. What it does say is that criminals will be motivated by codes of conduct and their personal moralities, which in turn tend to be close approximations to the associated criminal culture and thus similar to their peers.
In organized crime much of the ethical codes arise from protecting the interests of the organization. A criminal organization is best protected when it minimises the number of enemies it has and the number of crimes it performs. It is also wise for a criminal organization to be trusted, feared, respected and secretive. They are all ways of reducing the risks associated with larger scale criminal activity. Some of these desirable criminal interests can be good for society and others much less so. The less desirable aspects are the shows of strength through violence and intimidation which I will come to in a moment.
First however I shall discuss some of the ways in which criminal organizations can reduce their risks while also benefiting society. The IRA in their prime are not really in the scope of this essay as they were politically motivated rather than profit motivated. They do however provide a good non-fiction example of interaction between society and those outside the law, yet not without morals. The IRA needed public support and as such could not succeed if they alienated the public. They were able to offer a vigilante policing service to communities that is a far more effective deterrent against petty crime than conventional policing methods. A low chance of a small prison sentence compared with a high chance of having ones knee caps shot for dealing drugs is significant! Policing communities is an effective strategy for any criminal organization to adopt as it is something the state is unable to compete with. An area free from petty crime draws less attention from the authorities but more importantly is the acceptance of the local residents which reduces the chances of people alerting the authorities or standing as witnesses. Petty crime heavily affects communities where as most organized crime will be targeted at organizations (legitimate or otherwise), high worth individuals and controlled markets. Organized crime constitutes a much greater value of the total profits from crime than petty crime. This may make it seem like a greater priority for police to target than petty crime however I would strongly argue that petty crime causes greater overall suffering for the public. An increase in organized crime should come with a reduction in petty crime and thus an increase in the general quality of life. This is a trend at best however and cannot be relied upon, particularly given the scale of some of the atrocities caused by organized crime.
Reducing other crimes is probably the most advantageous thing a criminal organization can offer a community but it is certainly not the only beneficial thing that they can do in order to keep their enemies and profile low. Most of these are the sorts of things normal citizens do in order to make social relations easier and do not need detailed examples to be appreciated. The aspects of criminal ethos that are intimidating, destructive or violent initially appear to be very bad for society. Generally however these acts are intended for the competition and crime targets rather than all and sundry. The competition for organized crime is only really other criminals as legitimate businesses are playing a game with different rules. The aspects of organized crime which are most feared by the lawful public are those which are mostly aimed at other criminals and criminal organizations. The fact that organized crime may help reduce petty crime has been discussed, the fact that organized crime is self regulating to some extent and tends to avoid harming lawful citizen is reassuring but certainly no argument in its favour.
My last point of discussion is the services which organized crime offers to society. Generally the services afforded from organized crime are unlawful such as trade in controlled substances and merchandise or gambling and prostitution. I will debate the morality of these industries in detail in a later essay as they are of great social importance. It is clear at least that there is a demand for these commodities and services within society. I tend to view crimes as those things which hurt others or reduce their freedoms, certainly these kinds of act are more detrimental to society than paying for sex or taking illegal drugs from a material or economic view point. Whether it is right or wrong, organized crime provides desired services to society. The proportion of people in society who wish to make use of the services of organized crime does not really matter in making an argument for those services to be available, provided they do not negatively impact on others. If one can produce a valid argument in favour of an illegal trade or service then one has also found a valid argument in favour of organized crime. Organized crime is only one solution to a demand in society for an illegal trade or service, state sanction is a much more pragmatic approach if such an argument can be made.
Having explored three areas in which organized crime is not as bad as it may appear in social terms I have still failed to find any solid arguments in favour of organized crime within society. My three main arguments are the reduction of the wealth gap, the providing of otherwise unavailable services and a reduction in petty crime. All other points made were simply illustrations of how certain aspects of organized crime are not as bad as generally perceived. 'Not as bad' still implies some degree of bad and is thus no argument in favour of organized crime. The three main points can all be advantageous to society but each may also be achieved via alternate lawful routes. I must conclude therefore that organized crime is not a thing that is always beneficial to society. It may be fair to suggest however that organized crime is less detrimental to society than petty crime which is still a surprising conclusion to draw. I would firstly justify this with the differences in wealth redistribution properties between organized crime and petty crime, and secondly with a utilitarian view on human suffering with a strong emphasis on valuing lawful citizens quality of life.
The only point at which I could argue that organized crime is a positive thing for society is when that society is suffering a collapse. When government lose control it is only the morality and structure of criminal organizations that will prevent society falling into total anarchy. When it is every man for themselves the criminal organizations are the only remnants of civilization. As such, what criminal organizations achieve is a counter balance or negative feed back mechanism on a decline in civilization. This is another surprising conclusion to draw and hopefully something that will not have to play a part in the continuation of civilization. It is most useful when the argument is turned around as it shows quite clearly the best methods by which all crimes to make profit can be reduced in society, petty and organized alike. A narrow wealth gap and minimal restrictions on commodities and services within a society are the most effective ways to target the causes of crime. It stands to reason that if organized crime is a negative feedback mechanism that operates on the decline of society, one will reduce the level of organized crime by reducing those things that it operates as a counter measure to. Targeting the causes of crime in society is in turn is a more effective way to reduce crime than by catching and punishing individual criminals which is essentially ones aim by increasing police budgets. Like dentists always say, prevention is better than repair.
While I have offered no moral arguments for the legalization of any restricted commodities a very practical argument has been made where one assumes that members of society will find ways to do what they want to. With that being the case it is better to provide some form of sanction so as to reduce criminal activity otherwise supporting that demand. Additionally a state sanction allows for support, consistency, tax revenue and monitoring all to improve the overall affect of that commodity on society. As for the merits of a reduced wealth gap, I believe one can relate back all social ills to a large wealth gap to a reasonable extent. Discussion on each social issue as a justification on a narrow wealth gap would be significantly larger than this essay currently and is a prevalent theme throughout my writings (perhaps with bias resulting from my socialist views) . For the purpose of this essay we can assume that a narrow wealth gap (to a point) is a socially good thing and as such is an ideal candidate for a plan specifically aiming at reducing organized crime.
While I never seriously thought there could be a case supporting organized crime within society I wished to do this article to illustrate the advantages of logically analysing systems instead of ascribing to general assumptions regarding those systems. Primarily in this case it is the discovery of a logically consistent mechanism by which organized crime can be reduced in society that, while coming to many of the same conclusions as other arguments, approaches the subject from an opposite direction, like reversing a mathematical equation. By reaching the same conclusions from different reasoning paths one can doubly validate an argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment