The organization of 'organized crime policing' and its international context
| Author | Clive Harfield |
| Date | 01 November 2008 |
| Published date | 01 November 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895808096472 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
483
The organization of ‘organized crime
policing’ and its international context
CLIVE HARFIELD
University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Abstract
This article reflects upon a decade of developments in the
organization of organized crime policing, particularly within the
international context. The review illustrates that the policing (in its
widest sense) of organized crime is based on certain prerequisites.
Other actors besides law enforcement agencies have key roles to
play. The creation of an appropriate instrumental framework is
equally as important as having competent and appropriate agencies
in place. The multiplicity of interests beg questions about what is
feasible in the co-ordination of organized crime policing, given that
organized crime is a global phenomenon beyond the scope of any
one agency or jurisdiction to deal with alone.
Key Words
co-operation • international law enforcement • mutual legal assistance
• transnational criminal investigation • transnational policing
Introduction
How policing is organized depends on perceptions of what needs to be
policed. In the 10 years since Michael Levi’s overview introduction to a pre-
vious thematic volume on organized crime, little has changed to warrant
amending his axiomatic observation that ‘the term “organized crime” is
frequently used but difficult to define’ (Levi, 1998: 335; see also Levi, 2002,
2007). What has changed is the perception of the threat of organized crime.
The largely sterile definitional debate, driven it might be argued more by a
Criminology & Criminal Justice
© 2008 SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore)
and the British Society of Criminology.
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1748–8958; Vol: 8(4): 483–507
DOI: 10.1177/1748895808096472
need to determine (a pecking order of) law enforcement organizational
remit than by a comprehensive strategic approach to dealing with organized
crime, has been superseded by political debate fuelled by a variety of para-
digms. Hence organized crime is variously characterized in terms of nation-
wide conspiracy; ethnic grouping; socio-political elites and state-organized
crime; professional or white collar crime; ongoing illicit business enter-
prises; a global phenomenon; a core threat to democracy; and, increasingly,
as having a terrorist nexus (Winer, 1997; Dupont, 2006; Leong, 2007: 2–27—
though see Levi, 2007 for a more cautious review of the crime for profit–
terrorism connections). Police that!
These multiple, parallel paradigm evolutions underpin the notion that
organized crime has grown ‘beyond the competence of the traditional crimi-
nal justice investigative agencies’ such as police forces and customs agencies
(Findlay, 1995: 282; see also Sheptycki, 2007). State security agencies now
assume responsibilities for, and play a more significant role in, tackling organ-
ized crime, particularly where a nexus with terrorism is perceived (see
Björnehed, 2004; Picarelli, 2006; Brodeur, 2007; Holmes, 2007; Swanstrom,
2007). If organized crime is indeed a global phenomenon, by definition it must
be beyond the capacity and capability of any one national government to con-
trol (see Love, 2003; Robb, 2006). Picarelli summarizes the consequent vul-
nerability, identifying the transnational marketplace in which organized crime
groups operate as a multi-centric world: ‘attempts to regulate the mechanisms
of the multi-centric world using state-centric laws create illegal markets for
goods that individuals, as consumers, continue to desire, such as narcotics, or
collectives require, such as small arms’ (2006: 22). The very mechanism of reg-
ulation and control creates the potential illicit markets for criminals to exploit.
It is a global problem to which any potential or aspirational global solution
suffers from the political reality of different national priorities and perspectives
within the diplomatic arena, and different agency priorities and powers within
the nationally-structured, multiple jurisdictional arena. Organized crime is a
common menace without a common criminal code.
It follows, therefore, that collaborative and co-ordinated effort is required
to translate different and differing national capacities and capabilities into
an effective multilateral mechanism against organized crime and so appro-
priately organize organized crime policing in its international context. The
question arises, given the uncertainty of definition, the variation in percep-
tion and premise, and the inherent complexity of multi-layered, multi-actor
collaboration, to what extent effective or even efficient organization of
organized crime policing is possible at all (Edwards and Gill, 2003).
Prerequisites for policing organized crime
This article takes as its starting point the idea that ‘policing’ organized
crime, particularly within an international context, includes more than just
the functions of law enforcement agencies. From this premise it follows that
Criminology & Criminal Justice 8(4)484
To continue reading
Request your trial