I feel like the reason why the FBI/law enforcement didn't arrest known Mafia bosses in the past has to do with a long forgotten law enforcement point of view informed by prohibition era US.
Mafias and gangs thrive due to prohibitions and if you take out a leader it creates a power vacuum that will be filled with somebody and that often increases crime, particularly homicide in the wake of arresting a crime boss.
It's fascinating to read about Chicago. Now Chicago doesn't have the highest crime rate, but it's pretty high for a major US city. Particularly concentrated in certain areas. In 2017 pundits were baffled by the increase.
This article points out that the material wellbeing of the cities poorest residents actually increased before the crime spike. There was speculation about a lack of trust between the community and law enforcement and other theories but many were baffled. Crime in Chicago had become big news the newly elected Trump was threatening to send in the national guard.
What I found interesting was that directly before the spike in crime the cities largest gang's leader who controlled the drug trade as well as many other illegal activities was arrested along with other leaders in his gang.
The linked article is optimistic that the crime rate would decrease as many of the cities murders were related to this group. The opposite happened.
The only other time Chicago has had crime this bad is when Chicago gangster in the 1920s were having a power struggle.
My feeling is that immediately following prohibition there was an unspoken rule that law enforcement followed wether they accepted controlled crime run by organized crime, because the alternative was chaos. Lansky and his conspirators while terrible were better than whatever alternative may arise.
To this day Italy and Japan are somewhat plagued by organized crime. Yet both countries have a low homicide rate, with almost all of the homicides that do happen being related to the criminal underworld and often unreported.
Morally I am uncomfortable with the barigan that old school law enforcement seemed to have made. However it seems like it at least somewhat worked. The best outcome is no organized crime. For their operations to all be eliminated. However the second best option is organized crime with a monopoly on power that works within a framework that limits murder to their own cohort.
There’s also the simple, pragmatic reason too that it’s much easier to go after low-level street thugs and conventional criminals - as well as radical activists - than it is to go after organized crime figures.
I suspect that often police are not smart enough to go after extraordinary, brilliant gangsters like Lansky.
Look at Whitey Bulgar, the police explicitly assisted his rise as a crime boss. Policing is filled with moral gray areas and actual immorality especially urban policing. That's one reason why Scorsese and other directors have so effectively captured shown a lightly on humanity through the crime genre.
His work often times reflects that the true cost leading this type of life is ones soul. I've realized the religious significance of his work and how his Catholicism deeply informs his film making as I have grown older.
There is a higher cost to power/violence and the exercise of it than people realize. The costs can't be measured simply in the consequences found on the mortal plane. There is a corrupting element that leads people down a path for which they cannot be saved.
Ultimately because institutional justice is far from perfect and never will be, this is something we should all keep in mind. There is no "getting away" with anything ultimately.
On another note the devious schemer that works with dark moral values all ultimately for the cause of good has always been a fascinating character. Cecil Steadman from Invincible, Ozymandias from the Watchmen or even Nick Fury from Marvel comics are fascinating in this sense. Sacrificing not only their lives but potentially their very souls for the greater good. Interesting concept. The thing is who are they really to say what actually will "save the world" anointing yourself infinite power even for what you see as a good cause is absolutely something filled with many pitfalls for a fallible human. That's why the "lawful good" superheroes make lines for themselves they won't cross.
I feel like the reason why the FBI/law enforcement didn't arrest known Mafia bosses in the past has to do with a long forgotten law enforcement point of view informed by prohibition era US.
Mafias and gangs thrive due to prohibitions and if you take out a leader it creates a power vacuum that will be filled with somebody and that often increases crime, particularly homicide in the wake of arresting a crime boss.
It's fascinating to read about Chicago. Now Chicago doesn't have the highest crime rate, but it's pretty high for a major US city. Particularly concentrated in certain areas. In 2017 pundits were baffled by the increase.
This article points out that the material wellbeing of the cities poorest residents actually increased before the crime spike. There was speculation about a lack of trust between the community and law enforcement and other theories but many were baffled. Crime in Chicago had become big news the newly elected Trump was threatening to send in the national guard.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/chicago-homicide-spike-2016/514331/
What I found interesting was that directly before the spike in crime the cities largest gang's leader who controlled the drug trade as well as many other illegal activities was arrested along with other leaders in his gang.
The linked article is optimistic that the crime rate would decrease as many of the cities murders were related to this group. The opposite happened.
https://abc7chicago.com/johnny-herndon-gangster-disciples-drug-operation-christopher-harris/247273/
The only other time Chicago has had crime this bad is when Chicago gangster in the 1920s were having a power struggle.
My feeling is that immediately following prohibition there was an unspoken rule that law enforcement followed wether they accepted controlled crime run by organized crime, because the alternative was chaos. Lansky and his conspirators while terrible were better than whatever alternative may arise.
To this day Italy and Japan are somewhat plagued by organized crime. Yet both countries have a low homicide rate, with almost all of the homicides that do happen being related to the criminal underworld and often unreported.
Morally I am uncomfortable with the barigan that old school law enforcement seemed to have made. However it seems like it at least somewhat worked. The best outcome is no organized crime. For their operations to all be eliminated. However the second best option is organized crime with a monopoly on power that works within a framework that limits murder to their own cohort.
There’s also the simple, pragmatic reason too that it’s much easier to go after low-level street thugs and conventional criminals - as well as radical activists - than it is to go after organized crime figures.
I suspect that often police are not smart enough to go after extraordinary, brilliant gangsters like Lansky.
Look at Whitey Bulgar, the police explicitly assisted his rise as a crime boss. Policing is filled with moral gray areas and actual immorality especially urban policing. That's one reason why Scorsese and other directors have so effectively captured shown a lightly on humanity through the crime genre.
His work often times reflects that the true cost leading this type of life is ones soul. I've realized the religious significance of his work and how his Catholicism deeply informs his film making as I have grown older.
There is a higher cost to power/violence and the exercise of it than people realize. The costs can't be measured simply in the consequences found on the mortal plane. There is a corrupting element that leads people down a path for which they cannot be saved.
Ultimately because institutional justice is far from perfect and never will be, this is something we should all keep in mind. There is no "getting away" with anything ultimately.
On another note the devious schemer that works with dark moral values all ultimately for the cause of good has always been a fascinating character. Cecil Steadman from Invincible, Ozymandias from the Watchmen or even Nick Fury from Marvel comics are fascinating in this sense. Sacrificing not only their lives but potentially their very souls for the greater good. Interesting concept. The thing is who are they really to say what actually will "save the world" anointing yourself infinite power even for what you see as a good cause is absolutely something filled with many pitfalls for a fallible human. That's why the "lawful good" superheroes make lines for themselves they won't cross.