(240)-343-2585

In Week 3, you described the operation created and run by Nicky Barnes. For this assignment, you will examine and analyze the investigation and legal tools used to bring Barnes to justice.Provide a 4- to 5-page report in Microsoft Word that addresses the points listed below. Utilize terminology from the course and explain your reasoning wherever possible.Investigation Consider the structure of Barnes’ organization, as you described inWeek 3. How did this structure make it difficult for the government to investigate and prosecute Barnes? How would you characterize the criminal liability of the women who worked in the labs? Should they be considered part of the organized crime enterprise?Prosecution What investigative and prosecution tools were used against Nicky Barnes? Would seizing Barnes’ assets (e.g., his house, cars, and labs) have been a better deterrent over the long term? Explain whether these tools proved to be effective or ineffective? What makes you think so? If you were the prosecutor in this case, would you have used the RICO Act? Explain why or why not. What were the defense strategies used in the case?The Big Picture Is Barnes’ type of organized crime generally increasing or declining? How did changes or shifts in the criminal activities of Nicky Barnes compare with broader changes in organized crime documented by the two Presidential Organized Crime Commissions? How did Barnes’ organization compare with other groups carrying out the same kinds of crimes? file attached

In Week 3, you described the operation created and run by Nicky Barnes. For this assignment, you will examine and analyze the investigation and legal tools used to bring Barnes to justice.Provide a 4-
Running head: BARNES AND ORGANIZED CRIME 0 Barnes and Organized Crime Barnes and Organized Crime Nicky Barnes is a high-profile criminal born in New York City in 1933, into an African-American family. At an early age, Barnes engaged in dealing in drugs to earn income after he left home to escape abuse from his alcoholic father. Barnes was arrested in 1965, and while in jail, he met Joe Gallo and Matthew Madonna, members of crime families. It is in prison that Barnes learned running a drug trafficking empire. Upon release from prison, Barnes started assembling his staff and cutting and packaging heroin as well as established “the Council” to deal with other black gangs in Harlem effectively. He was active throughout the 1970s, heading a global drug trafficking ring, until his arrest and sentencing to life imprisonment in 1978. Barnes’ activities are an example of organized crime. Barnes’ activities relating to organized crime Barnes ruled the drug trade in the 1970s in Harlem (Maguire, 2018). Barnes’ organization was the largest heroin distributor in New York City. He made millions of dollars distributing heroin. Barnes, the boss of a large narcotic enterprise, represented a form of organized crime. Frank Lucas was Barnes’ main rival. However, Barnes’ methods were different from Lucas’. Barnes utilized the sheer volume as an edge to minimize the sway of the Italian distributors who controlled Harlem (Jacobson, 2007). As a result, Barnes was able to cut increasingly favorable deals with Mafia partners. This was contrary to Lucas, who established a lucrative direct connection line to Asia’s Golden Triangle, thereby bypassing the Italians altogether (Jacobson, 2007). Also, as compared to Lucas, whose primary circle consisted of his family members, Barnes’ inner circle comprised members of “the council (Abadinsky, 2012).” In the initial years of Barnes’ sentence, he was able to keep close contact with “the council.” However, his power and influence declined as the associates lost faith in him, and consequently, they accorded Barnes less respect. Without Barnes’ leadership, his organizations lost access to his considerable strategic and business skills as well as contacts, adversely affecting the development of his organization (Hendley, 2009). Stealing from the “boss” is common in the drug trade. However, Barnes ensured that his staff did not steal from him by the threat of killing. Barnes killed those who stole from him, for example, Clifford Haynes, and thus, employees were afraid of stealing from Barnes. Barnes and organized crime and criminal typologies Law enforcement entities and scholars have established characteristics to determine if a particular criminal activity and individual constitutes an organized crime and organized criminal. These characteristics include no political goals, limited or exclusive membership, hierarchical, use of illegal violence, perpetuates itself, monopolistic, unique subculture, and clear rules and regulations (Abadinsky, 2012). The goal of Barnes’ heroin business was for profits and power. His operations were hierarchical, with layers of ranks down the structure, up from him as the boss down to street-level retailers (Hendley, 2009). Membership to “the council” was limited as it comprised only seven members. Violence was part of Barnes’ heroin business, especially drug-related issues. However, having the major drug kingpins in New York City as the members of “the Council” minimized violence, in particular territorial violence (Abadinsky, 2012). Barnes’ organization enjoyed a monopoly in New York, especially after Frank Lucas’ arrest in 1975. Barnes’ organization maintained a monopoly by having a steady supply from Italian distributors and by violence. “The council” was governed by explicit rules and regulations. The members were required to follow these regulations. For example, no member of the council would have a sexual relationship with another member’s wife or mistress. The council also took the “oath of brotherhood (Maguire, 2018).” Generally, Barnes and his heroin trade activities satisfied the criteria for organized crime and organized criminal. Community’s tolerance of Barnes’ operations Despite Barnes’ participation in the drug business, extensive heroin distribution in Harlem, the community was lenient to his dealings and operations. This is attributed to Barnes’ involvement in activities that benefited the community, which helped cultivate and shape a favorable public image (Abadinsky, 2012). Barnes sponsored a Harlem basketball team which comprised of many community youths, and during Christmas, he gave turkeys to homeless accommodations and toys to kids (Abadinsky, 2012). He was respected by many people in the community. He portrayed himself as a businessman, having several from companies, including many car dealerships, which shielded his heroin operations. Besides, he was able to beat many charges and arrests successfully due to lack of evidence and unreliable witnesses, which gave him the name “Mr, Untouchable” (Maguire, 2018). This can be attributed to Barnes’ organization’s structure, comprising many layers of individuals who were in charge for the daily running of the heroin trade. Barnes’ operations’ structure Barnes modeled the structure of his operations based on the Italian mafia model. There were many authority layers between Barnes and the street thugs who did his bidding (Hendley, 2009). At the highest level of Barnes’ organization was Barnes himself as the overall boss. Barnes established “the Council” comprising of seven members. These members were the drug kingpins in New York City. This seven-man organization was responsible for running the heroin business in Harlem, settled criminal disputes, handled distribution issues, solved territorial matters, and other issues related to heroin trade in Harlem (Abadinsky, 2012). However, Barnes maintained veto powers over the decisions of the group. Following the expansion of the heroin trade, Barnes included seven lieutenants in the organizational structure. These lieutenants were responsible for many middle-level managers, who distributed heroin to 40 street-level dealers each (Hendley, 2009). Barnes was the overall boss. Barnes’ organizational skills Barnes’ organizational skills contributed to the success of his organization in the 1970s. Barnes’ organizational skills would have enabled him to be successful in a legitimate business, but he failed to utilize his skills in a lawful business. This may be attributed to Barnes’ environment that shaped him to begin a heroin empire rather than a legitimate business. For example, due to his abusive alcoholic father, Barnes began engaging in drug dealing to earn a living after running from home at an early age. Studies have established a positive relationship between experiences of abuse during childhood and an increased risk for drug abuse during adulthood (Dube, Felitti, Dong, Chapman, Giles, & Anda, 2003). This explains why Barnes himself became a heroin addict during his 20s and ended up in jail. However, he ended his addiction while in jail. Also, during Barnes’ time in jail, he was exposed to an environment of criminals. It is here that he met Joe Gallo and Matthew Madonna, members of crime families (Abadinsky, 2012). Gallo trained Barnes running a drug trafficking trade. As such, this was of great influence to Barnes starting a heroin empire rather than a legitimate business. Generally, from childhood through adulthood in his 20s, Barnes was exposed to an environment of drug dealing, which influenced him to start drug trade instead of a lawful business. Conclusion Barnes established a heroin empire in Harlem that expanded to Canada and Pennsylvania. Barnes’ organization was the largest heroin distributor in New York City. Barnes and his heroin trade activities satisfied the criteria for organized crime and organized criminal. His success is attributed to his organizational skills and community tolerance to his operations. The community tolerated Barnes’ activity in the community due to his involvement in activities that benefited the community. Barnes would have used his organizational skills to operate a successful, lawful business, but he did not, and this is attributed to Barnes’ environment that introduced him to drug abuse and dealing and consequent drug business. References Abadinsky, H. (2012). Organized crime. Cengage Learning. Dube, S. R., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., Chapman, D. P., Giles, W. H., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: the adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics, 111(3), 564-572. Hendley, N. (2009). American Gangsters, Then and Now: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 10-14. Jacobson, M. (2017, October 29). Lords of Dopetown. New York. Retrived from https://nymag.com/guides/money/2007/39948/ Maguire, L. (2018, March 29). LEROY “NICKY” BARNES (1933-2012). Black Past. Retrieved from https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/barnes-leroy-nicky-1933/