Chris Christie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:08 pm1 I don't disagree at all with your ranking system (I don't follow the recent stuff), but for such a system to withstand scrutiny we'd need to input data into a fact sheet and apply them into the crunch to determine our statistical findings. For instance, every conviction and what those convictions were for, tally them up and input them along with total membership for family to get percentages. The Chedrool Crime Family has 200 members, 50 of them were convicted this year for mopery, so 25% of their members go around doing that. That would be quite an endeavor for every category.
That would obviously be a labor-intensive endeavor. Personally, I don't have the time to get that far into the weeds. I'm content to look over past indictments (be it the last 10 or 20 years), as well as other sources, to identify general trends.
3 I want to ask you, what are your thoughts on splitting "associates" up into different categories. How would you split that up?
I think it would make sense on a certain level. Associate estimates vary so widely because the number expands or contracts on who's estimating and the strictness or looseness of the definition they are using. And obviously not all associates are created equal.
Wiseguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:28 pm
That would obviously be a labor-intensive endeavor. Personally, I don't have the time to get that far into the weeds. I'm content to look over past indictments (be it the last 10 or 20 years), as well as other sources, to identify general trends.
Indictments since 2000 would be a great start in understanding the modern mafia. But we'd need indictments & conviction rates. I don't want to go down to the individual member level, but perhaps add up who was indicted and also convicted in this racket or that racket. That data would be invaluable to start. But that's fully up to you, you still likely have a job that you're working (hope you and your family are safe.)
Wiseguy wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:28 pm
I think it would make sense on a certain level. Associate estimates vary so widely because the number expands or contracts on who's estimating and the strictness or looseness of the definition they are using. And obviously not all associates are created equal.
What categories would split them up into? I think we'd need on-record associates Italian, on-record associates non-Ital, relatives, business partners, etc. By means complete.
Here's an angle you don't see discussed much that might be relevant here.
Sources have mentioned that when there is a change in the boss position, all of the captains are technically demoted from their position until the new boss is elected and re-confirms them or appoints others in their place. Scarpa mentioned it when Joe Colombo took over and Stefano Magaddino was recorded discussing it with the Bonanno family before DiGregorio was formally elected. When Magaddino discussed it, he makes it sound like one incentive for a family to move forward on electing a new boss is because the rest of the family leadership loses standing/position until the new boss is made. Not only that, but he says the "borgata" itself can't be recognized until the boss is in place.
While we know families don't actually break up when a boss dies, Magaddino specifically says you must "form the borgata" by electing a new boss, implying that a family is seen as unformed until the boss is elected. He talks similarly about the Gambino family after Anastasia died, where he says the Commission appointed consigliere Carlo Gambino to acting boss in order to keep the borgata together prior to election. This could tell us more about some of the families that split apart early on in US mafia history.
It is just a formality as we know in most cases there is continuity in crews/captains between different bosses and most demotions/promotions of captains during that time are limited and circumstantial (though not always). It also appears to be something that died out, as we don't have more recent sources who mention captains having to be reappointed by a new boss. There is also some confusion and maybe even contradiction in it, as captains were still used to collect the votes of the membership and meet to make the final vote on the new boss, so whatever formal "demotion" takes place in the interrim before a new boss is elected is fairly meaningless within the organization, but it could still have an impact on their standing in the eyes of other families. It was no doubt politically advantageous to have an official boss in place.
It does reinforce the importance of the boss in traditional mafia politics, though. We also have CIs and CWs who say that a family's political power depends on the individual boss regardless of the family's size/scope. There are other factors, but members themselves are in agreement that having an official boss in high standing is a significant resource in their favor not only for the obvious practical reasons but because the mafia traditionally had rules that reinforce the authority and necessity of a boss. Sources have also made it clear that all bosses are traditionally considered equal in mafia politics, though we know how that plays out in reality.
