RICO Policy Issues

RICO Policy Issues
Organized crime was a high priority issue in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The United States Government took several different approaches in dealing with organized crime one of which was the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This Act has a significant impact on federal government’s ability to combat organized crime. A closer look at the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act will give some insight on who was affected by the act, what issues the act presents and my recommendations on modifying the act.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, was passed in 1970 to combat organized crime such as the mafia. Understanding how organizations such as the mafia operate will give some insight in what exactly the RICO Act accomplishes. Typical criminal organizations such as the mafia are designed in a way that members within the organization commit criminal acts at the direction of a boss, in the case of the mafia, The Godfather. Prior to RICO the Godfather was unable to be prosecuted for the criminal acts his members committed. In these cases the Godfather is able to continue his enterprise of criminal activity and reap the rewards of his clandestine operation. The RICO act essentially closes this loophole and allows for guilt by association style of prosecution (Grell, 2014). All that is required to indict an individual with a RICO charge is that they commit two predicate offences within a 10-year period. Predicate offences are defined as any violation of state statues against gambling, murder, kidnapping, extortion, arson, robbery, bribery, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance to name a few. In many of these cases, the boss or Godfather is indicted on charges of conspiracy to commit other predicated offences.
Many organizations have been prosecuted under RICO since its enactment. The Hells Angels was one of the first organizations to come under indictment. The federal government brought charges against Sonny Barger, however were unsuccessful and Barger was acquitted on the predicate acts. Frank Tieri was the first successful RICO conviction, and set the stage for multiple mafia RICO convictions including the Bonanno Family, Colombo Family, Gambino Family, Buffalino Family, as well as many other members of the La Cosa Nostra crime families (Koppel, 2011). The RICO Act remains a powerful tool for the federal government in the fight against organized crime.
While the RICO Act has aided in the successful conviction of many criminal enterprises some argue against the Act stating that it circumvents due process. The independent review (Anderson, 2004) states that the political climate during the 1970s favored the passing of RICO as America experienced assassination of its public figureheads, such as Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. as well as the Vietnam War. Much of America was at civil unrest and the RICO Act was a step in the direction of regaining law and order. Anderson states that RICO has out run its usefulness in that many business owners are becoming the target of RICO indictments and is being used as a way to gain easy convictions against those who are out of compliance with federal regulations. The RICO Act gave the federal government sweeping new powers that allowed freezing of assets of a target business prior to conviction, and confiscate the assets post conviction, ultimately inhibiting the defendant from hiring a lawyer and aiding in their own defense. Many interpreted these powers as a violation to due process and that the defendant is guilty until proven innocent (Anderson, 2004). In addition, the RICO act includes state statutes as part of a RICO predicated offenses. Typically, state statues are left to the states to enforce and federal crimes are charges separately. The interest to the public in rooting out organized crime outweighs the interest in federal government leaving certain cases to the states responsibility. There are guidelines however, that describe how law enforcement will bring RICO cases. These guidelines describe a selective process that will be uniformly applied. (US Attorneys, 2014) While RICO is very broad in nature it was the intention of the policy makers and the law enforcement officers who would carry out the laws to be careful not to overstep or over apply the loose law. In addition the guidelines policy seeks to find remedy through normal charging of cases, and only bringing RICO charges in cases in which the underlining charges do not address the true issue of organized crime. Prior approval from organized crime and gang units must be obtained first before going forward. This is to ensure that the criminal acts are indeed part of a larger criminal enterprise and not an individual occurrence. These guidelines were established to ensure that strictly organized crime was targeted and not legitimate businesses. In addition RICO charges violating only state statues were not approved to be prosecuted, this ensures that the federal government had a legitimate interest in prosecuting within their legal bounds (US Attorneys, 2014). Each guideline policy is written with care not to overstep federal bounds and state bounds. In prosecuting RICO crimes the federal government attempts to make every effort to ensure that there is a federal interest in going forward. If crimes could be charges adequately at the state level, the federal government would make that recommendation.
Despite the policy guidelines attempts to ensure federal interest in prosecuting RICO crimes, these sweeping powers granted to the federal government, I believe, do overstep the right to due process. It is in the interest of the public and the government to prosecute heads of criminal organizations. I do not believe these laws are as relevant as they were when originally passed. I think modifications to the Act that ensure due process while upholding the public interests would be best. It seems more relevant in our modern economy that white color crimes related to economic manipulation and government regulations are more of a threat to the public than organized crime such as the mafia.
The RICO Act was established in 1970 to combat organized crime that was running rampant through a politically charged society. The powerful Act was established to root out organized crime in every facet and did so through its sweeping powers granted to the federal government. Numerous crime families fell to the RICO act and law and order was eventually reestablished, as far as organized crime was concerned. Critiques claim that the act is overstepping the individual’s right to due process, and after close inspection, I have determined that, while relevant for the time, RICO does in fact overstep due process rights and should be modified to allow for due process and the interest of protecting the public. As long as there is an opportunity for organized crime, there will be an interest to protect the public laws similar to RICO help protect the public.

References
Anderson, W. L. (2004). Law as a Weapon: How RICO subverts liberty and the true purpose of law. Retrieved from http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215
Grell, J. E. (2014). RICO ACT. Retrieved from http://ricoact.com/?page_id=21
Koppel, N. (2011). They Call it RICO, and it is sweeping. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704881304576094110829882704
US Attorneys. (2014). ORGANIZED CRIME AND RACKETEERING. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/110mcrm.htm#9-110.200