COMBATING ORGANISED CRIME:

THE CASES OF ITALY, UK AND USA

1. The State and its primary function.

One of the modern State’s duties, and probably one of the very first one assigned to it, it’s the security of citizens. The importance of this function has been underlined by notorious contractualists like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: they both put in the State’s hands the task of proctecting their own lives and, in Locke’s case, that of protecting the private property too.

(C. Galli, Manuale di storia del pensiero politico, Edizioni Il Mulino, pages 196 and 210)

The State, in order to fulfil this fundamental function, equips itself with an army (concerned with external danger) and a police force (concerned with the internal order’s protection). In the case of internal order, one of the main problems to deal with, is that of crime.

2. The cases of Italy, UK and USA

In the last decades, daily life in western countries has become terribly distressed and tormented because of the emergence of new collective insecurity experiences.

This has contributed to erode the myth that the sovereign State is able to provide “law and order”.

The States takes remedial action: this feeling of insecurity gives it the required legitimacy to benefit from the coercive supervisory bodies, deemed to be the most effective with a view to restoring the social order.

There is, therefore, a return to a conservative crime thought.

In particular, the strategies implemented by the State to cope with crime, follow two lines. In the first  place, there is a reversion to the vision of the guilty developed by the Classical School, by ignoring all the subsequent theories (we therefore assist to a 300-years anachroism). The Classical School (dating back to the Enlightenment), to the question “why do some actors commit criminal or deviant acts?”, answers that the individual, devoid of any social inheritance, is free to choose between the compliance with the reules or their transgression by following his/her own interests.

The individual is conceived as a rational actor which is able to analyse costs and benefits that acts only if the benefit he/her gets from is more than the cost he would pay because of that action. (cfr. D. Scarcelli e D. Guidoni Vidoni, La devianza, Edizioni Carocci editore, pages. 22-24).

 How can the State deal with this kind of criminal?

The solution can be found in his/her rational behaviour: if he/her acts after a costs/benefits analysis, this calculation need to be altered if we want to prevent a criminal action. So costs have to be increased. How? Through penality. It assumes a an utilitarian aspect.

“The penalities’ aim is not that of tormenting or afflicting a sensitive human being but instead, its goal is that of preventing the guilty from hurting again the citizens as well as preventing others to do the same.” (Dei delitti e delle pene, C. Beccaria, cap. XII – Il fine delle pene).

The other line that the State’s strategies follow, has its roots in the Routine Activities Theory by Cohen and Felson. By shortly explaining, this theory believes that any premeditated crime is the result of the interaction between 3 elements, and they are:

• the absence of a guardian (formala s a policeman or informala s a common passerby);
• the presence of a assailant and
• the presence of a attractive target.

(L. Cohen e M. Felson, Social change and crime rate trends, American sociologica review, 44, 1979, pagg. 588-608).

All the attention is focused on concrete situations where crimes occur, with the surrender of public policies ( like welfare policies) by institutional control agencies.

<<The product of these two tendencies is a “criminology of daily life” that support and legitimate control and physical space’s protection policies. […] Protect the spaces and protect ourselves from dangerous people are perspectives that drop put any claim to take on deviant subjectivities. […] and that limit themselves to provide operating protocols that go beyond the comprehension of what is going on. They are knowledges which are orientedto the criminal risk manageent as well as defence of the community and control of dangerous people by following “actuarial” logics.>> (cfr. A. Ceretti e R. Cornelli, Oltre la paura, Feltrinelli, p. 119-120).

2.1. The American case

In the United States, apart from the proliferation of the gated communities (residential communities inhabitated by the upper classes which are crumbling, walled and access-controlled), local governments started to adopt some measures- known as Civility Laws- aimed at finding, punishing and suppressing any unsocial behaviour (for example drinking alcohol or begging in public places).

The criminalisation of such behaviour aims to dislocate the categories of annoying people in peripheral and partially visible areas.

This effect of relocation is, for obvious reasons, criminal: it does not find a solution to the problem.. it rather amplifies it smoewhere else in the city. Recently, new orders have appeared (Off-Limits Orders, Parks Exclusions Laws, Trespass Laws), and they prohit some determined categories of people to access spaces normally open to everyone (parks, hospitals, schools, libraries…)

The choice of the individuals such orders are ddressed to, is purely discretionary and it is not possible to appeal, even if administrative acts, the transgression generates criminal offence, because new kinds of offences have been introduced. cfr. A. Ceretti e R. Cornelli, Oltre la paura, Feltrinelli, p. 122-123).

2.2 The British case

In the United Kingdom, legislative acts aimed at protecting communities from people who practise “anti-social conduct”, have been adopted.

The British Parliament, having experienced the pressures coming from these at-risk communities, found itself in a situation n which it had to choose: increasing the welfare policies or imposing penalities through a punitive approach? The approach chosen was the second one. (cfr. A. Ceretti e R. Cornelli, Oltre la paura, Feltrinelli, p. 124-126).

2.3 The Italian case

Emblematic is the Maroni decree of 2008 (declared unconstitutional 3 years later) that gave the mayor the power to adopt measures aimed at preventing or eliminating dangers that threaten the public safety.

The sheriffs mayors created by this Decree Law, adopted various ordinanes such as: prohibition of prostitution, alcohol administrtion, prohibition for window washers, restriction on sale of some kind of food (example Kebab), ban on the use of many kind of clothes (example Burqa) etc.

Between 2008 and 2009, in 445 municipalities, well 800 ordinances (especially in Milan) have been intoduced.

(cfr. A. Ceretti e R. Cornelli, Oltre la paura, Feltrinelli, p. 127-130).

3. How should we interpret the emergence of these tendencies?

In order to understand how and why withn a State the adoption of a public policy or the enactment of a law are prevented, the adoption of a political perspective is fundamental.

3.1 Short introduction to Political Science

Political science has deep roots in the distant past.

Its object of study has not always been the same: it’ what  today we call Political System, developed by David Easton.

The Political System (which does not match with the State) it’s an interaction system through which the authoritative allocation of values in a certain society takes place.

It consists of three elements:

1. The authority (the political rulers),
2. The regime (which can be democratic or not);
3. The political community.

By the latter the inputs are derived, these inputs are conceived as questions addressed to the political system which translates them into outputs.

Therefore, citizens address questions to the political class that can produce – or not – laws.

But, by adopting a scientific perspective, what is the political class? Who is the politician? The politician is a vote-seeker, it means that he/she is someone who looks for votes because they give him/her the power to shift from the political community to the authority formed by those in power. (power-seeker)

“La politique est un domaine de pratique sociale où se jouent des raports de force symboliques pour la conquete et la gestion du pouvoir. Elle, donc, doit etre fondée sur une légitimité acquise et attribuée “(P. Charaudeau, Le discours politique, Vuibert, p.60).

• A political key to understanding

In view of this analysis, it is undeniable that a law or a public policy (output) is strictly dependent on this peculiarity of the politician. According to Anthony Downs (American political scientist) parties make political proposals in order to win the elections instead of winning the elections to achieve political proposals. This perspective suggests u show a law, sometimes, can be an instrument for enriching (in terms of vote and power) for a policy-maker.

Since we vote, parties are forced to create programs and  introduce themselves as istruments through which programs are implemented.

Roughly, we can conclude claiming that governments and leaders do answer to the voters’ questions- if rised so as to threaten/promote their power and prestige- because they want to be re-elected.

In low-resources situations, answers will be given only to those questions or asked by groups that have power upon governments and leaders (lobbying) or because they are considered congruent with their political program.

It is important to underline that is not always the case:

 sometimes a public policy is creted to prevent a situation of uncontrollable inputs; sometimes it is necessary to underline the fact that not all the inputs always match with the outputs and vice-versa.

(cfr. G. Pasquino, Nuovo corso di scienza politica, Edizioni il Mulino, pagg. 12-16,154-155,238-239).

4. Conclusion

Western governments are fighting against criminality returning to an obsolete vision of it.

Thanks to a political key to understanding and by perceiving the real nature of the policy-maker as vote/power-seeker, it is possible to understand “how and why” the italian government has created the Maroni decree of 2008 whose content does not understand/solve any problem; or why the United Kingdom has produced an “anti-social behaviour” Act; or even why in the USA is possible to issue acts aimed at the exclusion of certain categories of people from determined areas of the city.

That of government and administration is a world dominated by the political bargaining, where outputs are often prevented jist because it might be useful to go back to them during the election campaign in order to increase personal prestige and enrichment.

Davide Faraone