Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies ...

Assessing the Effectiveness of Organized Crime Control Strategies:
A Review of the Literature
The evidence was found to be significant in relation to just three measures—measures to combat
money laundering, witness protection programs, and reducing the supply of illegal goods and
services. A “limited” rating was provided in relation to the majority (12) of the measures. In the
case of three measures—anonymous juries, witness immunity, and investigative grand juries—
no evidence regarding their efficacy was uncovered, other than the anecdotal. Thus, it would
seem that, according to the rating scheme employed herein, additional research is required in
relation to 15 of 18 control strategies before more conclusive assertions can be made about their
efficacy.
The third and fourth columns in the table indicate some of the most salient benefits and
shortcomings of each OC control measure. The material contained in these columns is
essentially a summary of the strengths and limitations of each measure as discussed in the
previous chapter. These costs and benefits were considered in arriving at the overall
effectiveness rating provided in the fifth column.
A number of ratings were provided of overall effectiveness:
1. An “insufficient data” designation is given where no evidence was found regarding the
effectiveness of a measure or where the evidence was not sufficiently conclusive to
provide a rating;
2. A “low” effectiveness rating is used where the shortcomings of an OC control strategy
seem to considerably outweigh the benefits;
3. A “low-moderate” rating is used where a measure has more strengths than those rated
“low” but where the costs still outweigh the benefits;
4. A “moderate” rating reflects a situation in which the strengths and limitations of a
measure are fairly balanced;
5. A “moderate-high” rating is used where the strengths of a measure are considerable and
where they outweigh the costs substantially; or, where there is significant evidence of the
effectiveness of a measure even where the shortcomings may be fairly significant;
6. A “high” rating would be used where both the strengths outweigh the costs considerably
and where the evidence of effectiveness is significant.
No rating was provided in relation to one-third (6) of the measures—anonymous juries, witness
immunity, investigative grand juries, citizen’s/ police commissions/community-based efforts,
intelligence analysis, and legalization of illicit goods and services—due to a lack of or
insufficient evidence.
A “low” effectiveness rating was provided in relation to four of the measures—prosecuting OC
kingpins, measures to combat money laundering, seizure and forfeiture of assets, and reducing
the supply of illegal goods and services. With regard to the first, prosecution of heads of
criminal organizations, it was found that while the US, in particular, has “decapitated” many
prominent groups (especially Cosa Nostra families), these groups have demonstrated
considerable adaptability in maintaining their operations and there is little evidence that OC
activities have been affected. As for the control of money laundering, there is strong evidence
from a number of countries that, notwithstanding many recent convictions in the US, just a small
fraction of large or suspicious currency transaction reports lead to investigations. Also, there are
58 | Research and Statistics Division / Department of Justice Canada