Research Paper Sample on Gambino Family Case

The Gambino crime family is part of a five family group in the United States of America which is responsible for most organized criminal activities in New York City (Cressey, 2017). In addition to the family's activities within the city, it extends to general operations through its phenomenon commonly known as the "Mafia." It is named after its leader Carlo Gambino who was in its authority in 1963 during a critical hearing involving the family. Its operations keep on expanding and are currently present within the eastern seaboard that neighbors California (Albanese, 2018). Some of the most common illegal and criminal activities by this group include loan sharking, money laundering, fraud, racketeering, hijacking, fencing, gambling and pier thefts. The family was formed in back in the year 1931 following the end of the Castellammare war. Albert Anastasia is the most prominent leader of the group whose rule was the most renowned during this time. He was the head of operations within the Murder Inc, one of the family's branches which specialized in the killing. He retained power within the group even after the banning of the family in 1940.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The Gambino family was highly targeted by the prosecution especially the immediate leaders, which prompted the family case (Cressey, 2017). In March 1984, twenty members of the group were taken before a grand jury to answer to cases of murder, prostitution, drug trafficking and theft. The situation here involved Angelo Ruggiero and Gene Gotti as the main culprits. Another example took place in 1985 and involved Costellano and other leaders in what was commonly known as the Mafia Commission Case. Gotti got through three subsequent trials before the state and federal authorities but was acquitted in all the three allegations.

U.S Drug Enforcement Agency Definition of an Informant

The activities of this gang group inevitably require the assistance of informants to be easily uncovered (Albanese, 2018). Information is the most relevant asset that assists law enforcement agencies in executing arrests. Criminals are very creative and will almost always do all they can to remain undetected. The best source of information is insiders since they have much of the details which are relevant to addressing the issues at hand. The U.S Drug Enforcement Agency has an informant program who are sourced from airline employees, government employees, gang members, and foreign government agency employees who provide confidential information and leads for the anti-drug agency. Most of the informants are given financial rewards in exchange for information and also to be able to navigate the complex U.S constitution such as the privacy protections enshrined in the fourth amendment (Davidson, 2016). Without the informants, the DEA cannot be able to get confidential organization information without following the due legal measures which make informants a crucial asset for the DEA war against drugs and drug trafficking. The use of informants by the DEA has raised a significant objection by the media and interested individuals who have been accusing the DEA of lacking effective measures to probe the confidential informants as well as the engagement of the informants in illegal activities as a form of cover-up (Davidson, 2016). Due to poor regulation informants have been reported to engage in the sale of narcotics as well as irregular compensations which sometimes is linked to corruption.

Classification of Informant Groups

A. Average Citizens:

The ordinary citizens who are the immediate members of the community are a crucial source of intelligent information. Since they desire a safe and better livelihood, then they end up offering details about people who are a danger to their security. In doing this, the law enforcers are therefore made aware of the prevailing security concerns and thus take time as early as possible (Kumar, 1989). Investigators and law enforcers may also select a few members of the community who are consulted from time to time for such information.

B. Fellow law Enforcement Officers:

Different law enforcement officers may have very relevant information related to the crime which is beneficial to members of their operation team. Since they operate from different areas of operation, they often come across some details and data which are useful to other agencies (Kumar, 1989). Therefore, other law enforcement officers are the source of valuable information which can be used by the DEA to carry out their operations to stem out narcotic trade in the United States of America.

C. Mentally Ill People:

People often ignore the talks coming from sick mentally persons, but in most cases, their information is legit and usable. Criminals will often exchange information in the presence of such people in the streets assuming that they do not comprehend. When such people speak, law enforcement agents should take keen interest since they are likely to have information relevant to their operations.

D. Criminals or their Associates:

Criminals who carry out competing for criminal activities or who fall out with the rest on specific issues are a useful source of information (Ratcliffe, 2016). There are some who end up reporting the activities of the others when they can no longer agree. Similarly, some who carry out some activities such as drug trafficking say their counterparts who prove to be too competitive and a threat to their success. People who are currently members of a criminal group or who have served in such an organization has crucial details which pertain the group, and if it is possible, law enforcers should use some means to prompt them to produce them. This is done either when the criminals are arrested or in police custody or soliciting voluntary information. When these individuals offer information, it is necessary that the police withhold their identity for security reasons (Kumar, 1989). Nevertheless, the identification can be revealed if the informant allows this to be done.

Guidelines for Interviewing Informants

The law enforcement officers should be sensitive and follow the right protocol when sourcing for information from informants (Hess, Orthmann & Cho, 2016). This is part of ethics which if ignored would translate to negative reception from the informants. It is wise to approach them in a humane and friendly manner to avoid situations of concealment of information. Once the police and investigators approach informants the right way, trust and confidence are builds which is the sure way of making them feel free to let go of the information they have about the matter at hand.

A criminal investigator ought to be patient and avoid approaching informants in a rush (Cressey, 2017). The conversation should be kept stable and in such a way that it avoids wandering from one end to another. As far as possible it necessary to maintain stability and consistency in conversation. This helps in building confidence and trust from the informant who makes them give information at ease. Another approach for creating and maintaining rapport with informants is ensuring that we sympathize with their current situations and assisting them where possible (Maguire & John, 1995). In doing this, confidence and closeness are strengthened which prompt them to become open and offer even the most sensitive information.

The officer or officers interrogating an informant should ensure that they preserve all the details given through noting down in a notebook (Holland & Rios, 2017). In the event where two or more officers are undertaking this role, one should take notes as the others ask questions related to the case a hand. Records should be made as soon as possible to avoid forgetting, either during the interview or shortly after. If this is not done, there lies some significant chances of some small yet relevant pieces of information being lost yet lending the whole process futility. However, the data are taken from an informant and which is recorded down must be compared to the already known facts. It is inevitably crucial to verify the truthfulness of the information offered to avoid recording that which is well known to be wrong. Therefore, the interviewer should clarify about the information they feel that is out of the know facts and rectify where necessary.

Questions directed at the informant should be void if any hurting content. There are some approaches to questioning which if employed are likely to hurt the respondent and therefore limit their willingness to offer the required data. It applies more to informants who have been criminals in their life or relatives who have witnessed criminal family members. When approaching them, the investigator ought to use polite words which do not directly incriminate them into crime rather one that appreciates them for shunning it. The language used on them ought to be that which encourages them to avoid offense entirely and even pass this message to their partners still living in crime. Threat should be averted as it discourages them from offering intelligence and causes fear among them. The investigating officers should limit the amount of information they share with informants as much as possible (Bartels, 2011). Giving too much information is sensitive to and may implicate negatively on the how active the officer is over the interview. Furthermore, the safety of the officer may be at stake when too much is known about them by members of the public.

Ways of Protecting Informants Identity

It is ethically necessary that the identity of informants is withheld and kept a top secret for the sake of their security and wellbeing. One way of working towards this is through limiting direct contact with them to a single investigator at a time (Holland & Rios, 2017). This helps in minimizing public interest in the business taking place between them. In addition to this, it is wise to hold very short meetings with them as long as ones will create some suspicion. In case telephone calls are used as the channel of communication, the investigator must ensure that they do it in a low voice such that the conversation is not heard by other parties (Maguire & John, 1995). To make this more effective, the officer is to ensure that the phones used in the interview cannot be traced by criminals for sourcing the identity of the interviewee as well as the information they shared.