Though there are many scholarly books which demolish the Mafia Myth, I have 
chosen the following: "The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice," by 
Victor E. Kappeler, Mark Blumberg, and Gary W. Potter (1). 

This text initially published in 1993, is now in its third edition, is used 
in over 300 universities, and has annual sales of 10,000 to 12,000 (2). This 
book is unique in that it stresses the mythology associated with a host of 
different crime and criminal justice issues. It is the author’s thesis that  
this mythology is largely responsible for this country’s highly ineffective 
crime fighting social policies. I will describe the more pervasive forces 
that are responsible for this mythology and show how this mythology has 
played itself out in the arena of organized crime/Mafia. 

Solutions to crime and criminal justice issues have been hampered by the 
proliferation of myths by vested interests, the most notable being government 
bureaucrats and the mass media who have exercised their tremendous 
opinion-influencing powers for their self-serving purposes. This has resulted 
in social policies which place emphasis on apprehension and punishment. On 
the other hand, the efforts of scholars to put crime fighting resources into 
addressing crime causation go generally unnoticed. The result is that we 
spend billions of dollars, send our military abroad, build more and more 
jails and, despite these efforts, have made little progress in fighting 
crime. 

The Function of Crime Myths 
Myths usually contain some element of truth: however, this truth becomes 
irrelevant as these myths take on larger-than-life qualities which then 
become the basis for social policies. These myths provide a conceptual 
framework from which we reinforce stereotypic thinking and provide for easy 
answers to complex situations. Whereas in other fields of endeavor we place 
emphasis on research, empirical evidence, and scientific approaches, in the 
crime arena the absence of these tools has created a void that allows myths 
to serve as the mortar to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. As a result the 
‘answers’ invariably serve to maintain present views of crime and criminal 
justice, and ignore efforts to define and analyze issues, and find solutions. 

The Media and Government as the Major Mythmakers The media is driven by the 
competitive nature of the business; it is all about getting large audiences, 
readership, advertising dollars, etc. Crime stories guarantee these results; 
hence, if ‘it bleeds it leads.’ These stories require a minimum of 
journalistic time or talent, require little concern for accuracy (who is 
going to sue?), and are easy to sensationalize with the usual ‘we good guys - 
them bad guys’ backdrop. What the public sees is a disproportionate amount of 
attention being placed on a few high-profile, high-entertainment value crime 
stories which leaves no room for serious reporting or study of the dynamics 
of crime issues. 

To make matters worse, the media’s mythmaking capabilities have been greatly 
increased by a technically sophisticated mass communication system that is 
able to reach virtually everyone. Most of the newspaper circulation is 
controlled by fewer than 15 corporations and Time, Inc. which controls 40% of 
all magazine sales (3). 

Once it is apparent that a particular crime event, or related series of 
events, attracts a large audience, the politicizing process inevitably kicks 
in. The government bureaucrat becomes concerned with his department’s public 
image - be it damage control or promoting a positive image. The result is an 
unholy alliance between the media and the politicos in which there are mutual 
back scratching scenarios. The result is that both parties forgo their 
constitutional obligations in favor of their respective self-interests. In 
this picture the researchers are essentially nonexistent. 

Sometimes, it is the government who contrives or directs events by alerting 
the media to current news material. The bureaucrat is skilled in preparing 
press releases for public consumption, and can essentially control, direct 
and mold messages, making him a most powerful mythmaker. Mythmaking dictates 
maintaining the existing social definition of crime, because the status quo 
serves the interest of the bureaucrat. Maintaining existing definitions means 
extending the cause of crime to groups and behaviors that are perceived to be 
a threat to existing social order. This scenario is never changed, except 
possibly to include a new group. It is the bureaucrat’s position that these 
threats can only be eliminated with more money, more personnel and more 
enforcement power sometimes resulting in legislation which pushes the 
envelope of what is constitutional. 

The Official Myth of Organized Crime 
We are told that organized crime in the United States was imported in the 
late 19th and early 20th century by the wave of Italian immigrants. With 
these immigrants came secret, outlaw, feudal societies such as the Mafia; 
seedlings from which all organized crime sprouted. In 1931, after the 
Castellammarese Wars, the feudal Sicilian was eliminated and the Mafia was 
modernized. By 1932 organized crime was made up of 24 hierarchically 
structured organizations governed by a national commission 

Initially, this massive, alien conspiracy was called to our attention in a 
systematic manner by the Bureau of Narcotics. In 1951, the Kefauver Committee 
drew attention to the Mafia. This was followed by the McCellan Committee and 
later followed by the Apalachin meeting. These events firmly established that 
organized crime in this country was an alien conspiracy. 

The Presidential Crime Commission Report of 1967 and Cressey’s, "Theft of  a 
Nation," gave the alien conspiracy scenario additional credibility and  
presented it in terms useful to the lawmakers. The Presidential Commission 
Report also established that the Mafia was really La Cosa Nostra, which had a 
 hierarchical structure (My note: Apparently their enrolled in Bus. Adm. 
101). 

Following the lead of law enforcement, ambitious politicians, presidential 
commissions, journalists, academics and writers of novels and screenplays  
advanced this picture of organized crime. Since then every journalistic 
account and a host of academic treatises have bought into this myth. Based  
on their writings we must conclude that alien groups have corrupted our 
otherwise incorruptible society. 

In latter years, it has become necessary to keep alive this bureaucratic and 
media mythology by the inclusion of groups other than Italian. This presented 
 no problem, the official position was that anyone "unlucky enough not to 
have been born Italian’’ and wishing to get involved, could do so at the 
"sufferance of the Mafia." 

Historical Myths of Organized Crime 
The proof used to justify the alien conspiracy myth range from the dubious to 
the preposterous. The assertion that the Sicilian Mafia was transplanted to  
the United States in the waves of Italian immigration is open to question. 
The fact that other nations have received similar waves of Italian 
immigration at the same time as the United States and failed to develop 
anything close to the United States version of the Mafia has never been  
addressed by officialdom or the mass media. 

The Castellammarese Wars never happened. The Kefauver Committee heard a great 
deal of testimony on organized crime and gambling and yet they failed to 
produce one witness who even mentioned the word ‘Mafia.’ The Apalachin 
Meeting was not a meeting of boy Scouts, yet, despite the number of people 
involved and the number of years that have passed, no one knows the true 
agenda of this meeting. (My note: In my opinion Nelli, "the Business of 
Crime," does a good job of comparing the Apalachin with similar meetings.) 
Finally, examination of the testimony of witnesses like Valachi and Fratianno 
reveals contradictions, errors and uncorroborated assertions. Neither of 
these informers were in a position to provide insight credited to them. 

"Rather than substance, the alien conspiracy is supported by the testimony of 
a few government-sponsored informants and public release of heavily selected 
police files and surveillance transcripts - all tied together with official 
speculation." 

Empirical Evidence and Organized Crime
"Virtually every empirical study of organized crime has reached conclusions 
diametrically opposed to those in the official myth." Studies have 
demonstrated that these organizations are not highly structured but rather 
loosely structured, informal, highly adaptive, flexible networks. The fact is 
that inflexible, clan-based corporate entities described by law enforcement 
agencies could not survive in an environment where operations must be 
clandestine. Hollywood and TV movies to the contrary, Lansky’s and Capone’s 
extensive operations were in reality a series of small-scale business 
partnerships, usually involving senior partners in a series of investment and 
joint business ventures. The same type of partnerships are found in studies 
by Albini, Chambliss, Gardiner, Ianni, Reuter, Potter, Jenkins, and others 
(4). 

The evidence also calls into question the assumption in the official myth 
that organized criminals act as the corrupters of public officials.  
Available evidence indicates that a more accurate perspective is that 
organized criminals and legitimate business and government officials are all 
equal players in a marketplace of corruption. The fact is that it is not 
uncommon for the ‘upper-world’ and ‘under-world’ to have long-standing 
corrupt relationships. The authors cite work of others researchers who 
describe relationships between organized crime and many highly respected 
institutions. (My comment: I do not include these institutions but the list 
is extensive and the players named astounding.) 

There is no denying the existence of ethnic crime groups; however, the 
authors suggest where there is a picture of a ethnic homogeneity, it is more 
a reflection of urban life rather than the machinations a secret, ethnic 
conspiracy. 

Controlling Organized Crime
Our efforts to control and eradicate organized crime have failed. They have 
failed because law enforcement has placed too much emphasis on the 
Headhunting Strategy (an all-out effort to convict media prominent figures), 
and failure to focus on the overall dynamics of organized crime. The 
Headhunting Strategy is predicated on the false assumptions that the role of 
bosses is dominant. The reality is if the environment is ripe for illegal  
profits, the boss is rapidly replaced. Furthermore, if we are to control 
organized crime the emphasis should be placed on the desire of ‘average’ 
citizens for illicit goods and services, the role of political corruption and 
the role of ‘legitimate ’ business people. Simply putting people in jail 
fails to address the root causes of organized crime. 

Dwight Smith has repeatedly insisted, in writing and personal presentations,  
that if we are to control organized crime we must conceptualize organized 
crime as a business whose organization and functions are altered as needed so 
as to maximize profits. If we are to control crime we must look at the 
complete - oftentimes changing - picture. (5)