Members who shared the same ethnic ties started almost every crime family. Crime families consisted of members of the same ethnic group. Founders of crime families like Charles “Lucky” Luciano recognized that ethnicity played a significant role in the violence of criminal gang wars. Thus, they had to find a mechanism to rein that aspect. Although the foundation of crime families might be on the line of ethnicity, most of them contain members from diverse ethnic groups. Crime families incorporate people from other ethnic to work closely as associates.  The idea is to bring on board people who cooperate for the common good of the group. However, regardless of whichever ethnic groups the members are drawn from they must operate under a set of rules that are enforced in most cases by death. In essence, the reason why crime families are established on the line of ethnicity is that people from the same ethnic group share the same predicament. Bringing other people from other ethnic groups is not something the crime groups regard. This is because of the fear that the “outsiders” might not cooperate with the norms of the group due to the different opinions and ideology. People from the same ethnic group tend to think and act the same towards a specific noble cause, in this case, crime.

If a business is facilitating criminal activity, it has no place in society, and the government should take the right measures against such a business. It is unfortunate that some “legitimate” business is established purposely to launder money. In such a case, the government is supposed to go full force and ensure that such businesses are closed. The best way to handle such businesses is to apply the forfeiture law.  Nonetheless, other businesses facilitate criminal activities unwittingly. In such cases, the government should not apply the civil forfeiture to shut them down. Civil forfeiture should only be applied for businesses that purposely established to facilitate criminal activities knowingly.  The rational thing to do is warn or if necessary fine this business. They should be reminded that it is their responsibility to ensure that businesses are run only on the primary purpose that they were established to achieve – conduct business legitimately. The government also should happy screening to prevent business from unwittingly facilitating crime.

Police officers cannot break the law just because they are police officers. No one is above the law. Law enforcement officers being allowed to break the law which they are enforcing is awful, but logical. There are some exceptions where law enforcement officers should be allowed to break the law there are supposed to enforce. Law enforcers are put in situations that need them to go against the law to either defend themselves or to protect their job. The extent to which law enforcement officers are supposed to break the law is limited. An undercover police officer should be allowed to engage into a criminal activity where the course is to obtain information or evidence deemed necessary for the success of the investigation which without participating in such illegal activity would not be obtained. They also should be allowed to participate in criminal activity to establish or maintain the credibility of a cover identity. Finally, it would be imperative to let them participate in such a criminal activity if the course is to prevent death or serious injuries. Nonetheless, I think undercover police officers should always be mindful of the criminal activities they participate in because they will work in most cases they will have to testify in court if legal actions pertaining the case are taken.

Reference

Mallory, S. L. (2011). Understanding organized crime. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.