Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies ...

The diverse definitions of OC provided by US states illustrates the prevailing definitional chaos
(Reuter, 1994:93). On one extreme is the very broad statutory definition of the state of
Mississippi: “Two or more persons conspiring together to commit crimes for profit on a
continuing basis.” Such a definition would include two robbers or burglars, or even members of
a youth gang, who planned and executed crimes together for a period of time.
Many states have adopted definitions that have emphasized the elements of fear, discipline, and
corruption (Reuter, 1994). The state of Kansas, for example, refers to “a continuing criminal
conspiracy organized for power and profit utilizing fear and corruption to obtain immunity from
the law.” Similar to the Canadian Criminal Code, other US states spell out the activities of OC.
Pennsylvania, for example, indicates that, “‘Organized crime’ and ‘racketeering’ shall include,
but not be limited to, conspiracy to commit murder, bribery or extortion, narcotics or dangerous
drug violations, prostitution, usury, subordination or perjury and lottery, bookmaking or other
forms of organized gambling” (Reuter, 1994:93).
Blakey, Goldstock, and Rogovin (1978) assert that the manner in which definitions are arrived at
by those with enforcement responsibilities are reversed from what one would intuitively expect.
Logically, we would expect to first define OC and then develop legal and investigative tools to
deal with it. Rather, these authors assert that definitions are often based on issues that have been
identified as particularly worthy of investigation:
Most often, the content of the definition [of OC] reflects the perspective of the
discipline or profession of the author, and different perspectives have led to different
definitions. Definitions, too, reflect purpose. To meet varying needs, organized
crime may, of course, be quite legitimately defined by members of the same
profession in quite different fashions; for example, to limit or expand investigative
jurisdiction, create special crimes, or to assess extra punishment for those who
engage in certain kinds of criminal behavior. (p.3)
Blakey and his associates (1978:3) further assert that the law enforcement community is
inconsistent in defining OC and often fails to focus on the manner in which offences are
committed:
In the absence of a generally accepted definition of organized crime for
administrative purposes, however, police and prosecutors have tended to focus their
attention upon conduct that can be clearly labeled criminal: conspiracy, extortion,
bribery, etc. Nevertheless, these categories of the substantive penal law do little to
distinguish persons involved in individual acts from those individuals involved in
larger criminal networks…The failure to give due attention to specialized
knowledge about the manner in which crimes are committed and its relation to
substantive crime definitions gives an
accordion-like quality to operating definitions of organized crime and organized
criminals. Definitional flexibility may be desirable for some purposes, but it clearly
does not give rise to a great deal of consistency between units charged with
organized crime control.
Research and Statistics Division / Department of Justice Canada | 9