The Law from 1890s-1950s

[Extortion]

It seems like punishment was either really harsh or not harsh at all enabling criminals a “career path” due to the loose laws. However, were the prisons worse back then...Did they give the death sentence more often?

[Peppermint]

It seems like punishment was either really harsh or not harsh at all enabling criminals a “career path” due to the loose laws. However, were the prisons worse back then...Did they give the death sentence more often?

With everything going on today, I would say that if anything we are enabling criminals now compared to then. Law and order actually mattered pretty much all the way up until probably the 90’s. Punishment became increasingly lackluster since then, and prisons and jails have practically became adult daycare centers.

[slimshady_007]

It seems like punishment was either really harsh or not harsh at all enabling criminals a “career path” due to the loose laws. However, were the prisons worse back then...Did they give the death sentence more often?

With everything going on today, I would say that if anything we are enabling criminals now compared to then. Law and order actually mattered pretty much all the way up until probably the 90’s. Punishment became increasingly lackluster since then, and prisons and jails have practically became adult daycare centers.

I disagree.. the prison population has skyrocketed since the 90’s and most prisons built in the past 30 yrs have been maximum security prisons. In New York, the death penalty was reinstated in 1995 and in California, more secure prisons like Pelican Bay were taking tons of new inmates. Punishments nowadays are stronger but have only caused prisons to become overcrowded.

[Antiliar]

It seems like punishment was either really harsh or not harsh at all enabling criminals a “career path” due to the loose laws. However, were the prisons worse back then...Did they give the death sentence more often?

With everything going on today, I would say that if anything we are enabling criminals now compared to then. Law and order actually mattered pretty much all the way up until probably the 90’s. Punishment became increasingly lackluster since then, and prisons and jails have practically became adult daycare centers.

I disagree.. the prison population has skyrocketed since the 90’s and most prisons built in the past 30 yrs have been maximum security prisons. In New York, the death penalty was reinstated in 1995 and in California, more secure prisons like Pelican Bay were taking tons of new inmates. Punishments nowadays are stronger but have only caused prisons to become overcrowded.

Prison population increased because of the 1994 Clinton crime bill, not to mention an overall increase in the country's population. The quality of prisons has improved over the decades. Prisons from the 1930s were much harsher than today. Yes, the death penalty was reinstated in 1995, but it's hardly ever used. In the early 20th century death sentences were carried out much more often than today. Prison overcrowding has declined, but the answer should have been more prisons and better laws. But overcrowding doesn't make prison "harsher."

[CabriniGreen]

Unless you were a bank robber or Communist. No FEDS on you is a pretty good deal for a criminal...

[slimshady_007]

It seems like punishment was either really harsh or not harsh at all enabling criminals a “career path” due to the loose laws. However, were the prisons worse back then...Did they give the death sentence more often?

With everything going on today, I would say that if anything we are enabling criminals now compared to then. Law and order actually mattered pretty much all the way up until probably the 90’s. Punishment became increasingly lackluster since then, and prisons and jails have practically became adult daycare centers.

I disagree.. the prison population has skyrocketed since the 90’s and most prisons built in the past 30 yrs have been maximum security prisons. In New York, the death penalty was reinstated in 1995 and in California, more secure prisons like Pelican Bay were taking tons of new inmates. Punishments nowadays are stronger but have only caused prisons to become overcrowded.

Prison population increased because of the 1994 Clinton crime bill, not to mention an overall increase in the country's population. The quality of prisons has improved over the decades. Prisons from the 1930s were much harsher than today. Yes, the death penalty was reinstated in 1995, but it's hardly ever used. In the early 20th century death sentences were carried out much more often than today. Prison overcrowding has declined, but the answer should have been more prisons and better laws. But overcrowding doesn't make prison "harsher."

You’re right, the Clinton crime bill definitely contributed to prisons overcrowding. While prison overcrowding is declining nationally, it’s still a problem is certain areas. In California prisons are still extremely overcrowded. According to one 2018 report, California prisons are at 134.7% of capacity.

[Angelo Santino]

Prior to the 1950's, the laws just were not in place to target criminal enterprises/gangs. Investigations had to work on nabbing a suspect and getting him to name his accomplices. This was limited to specific criminal activity- a group robbery or a murder conspiracy. They did not have the capacity to investigate "the mafia." Law enforcement was well aware that there was some Italian national group since the 1900's and they had underworld informants, plenty of them. But when your agency is assigned to track down counterfeiting or interstate bootlegging or gambling, they were confined to work within that prism.

And I think I said this before, but "organized crime" was just not clearly understood in the 1900's. There were arguments over what constituted organized crime. Was it any preplanned crime or was it a group of people acting in tandem and if so how many people does it require to be constituted as organized. This was only 120 years ago. Go back a few more decades and Cesare Lombroso was trying to attribute criminality to undeveloped humans and was bringing in Southern Italian criminals, stripping them naked and having them measured. If you look hard enough you can find photos of Joe Musolino's junk as they measured that too. And given the darker complexions of the south it fit in with Lombroso's idea that they were still primate-influenced.

It wasn't until 1957's Top Hoodlum program that there was any organized attempt to at least surveil mob members. The FBN had all the information but it was the FBI who knew how to utilize it. Then 13 years later RICO was implemented but the justice department didn't really get their groove for another decade.

The change this brought was significant. If one guy murdered someone and another drove to dispose of the body, these crimes would have been tried with the intent of linking individual one to the murder and individual two as having knowledge of it. "Y'er honor, my client was just helping a friend move what he was told was luggage." But with RICO and the ability to apply criminal conspiracy, the driver is just as guilty and liable to face a decades long sentence.

[Villain]

Prior to the 1950's, the laws just were not in place to target criminal enterprises/gangs. Investigations had to work on nabbing a suspect and getting him to name his accomplices.

I have dozens of examples from the 1940s in which the gov prosecuted many gangsters as being members of large criminal organizations...they maybe didnt refer to it as the Mafia at the time and they didnt have the RICO act, but still the agents were quite aware regarding the existence of some type of huge and single organized criminal body within the country and proof for that were the following Kefauver hearings in 1950, which in turn were established on those same cases

[Angelo Santino]

Prior to the 1950's, the laws just were not in place to target criminal enterprises/gangs. Investigations had to work on nabbing a suspect and getting him to name his accomplices.

I have dozens of examples from the 1940s in which the gov prosecuted many gangsters as being members of large criminal organizations...they maybe didnt refer to it as the Mafia at the time and they didnt have the RICO act, but still the agents were quite aware regarding the existence of some type of huge and single organized criminal body within the country and proof for that were the following Kefauver hearings in 1950, which in turn were established on those same cases

Were they charged and convicted for being part of a criminal enterprise or were they charged with specific crimes? There were convictions before 1957, I wasn't trying to say that.

[Villain]

Prior to the 1950's, the laws just were not in place to target criminal enterprises/gangs. Investigations had to work on nabbing a suspect and getting him to name his accomplices.

I have dozens of examples from the 1940s in which the gov prosecuted many gangsters as being members of large criminal organizations...they maybe didnt refer to it as the Mafia at the time and they didnt have the RICO act, but still the agents were quite aware regarding the existence of some type of huge and single organized criminal body within the country and proof for that were the following Kefauver hearings in 1950, which in turn were established on those same cases

Were they charged and convicted for being part of a criminal enterprise or were they charged with specific crimes? There were convictions before 1957, I wasn't trying to say that.

Well they were obviously convicted for being part of some specific crimes but they were also accused for being members of the Capone mob for example....and im talking about the 40s, not 50s

[Angelo Santino]

Prior to the 1950's, the laws just were not in place to target criminal enterprises/gangs. Investigations had to work on nabbing a suspect and getting him to name his accomplices.

I have dozens of examples from the 1940s in which the gov prosecuted many gangsters as being members of large criminal organizations...they maybe didnt refer to it as the Mafia at the time and they didnt have the RICO act, but still the agents were quite aware regarding the existence of some type of huge and single organized criminal body within the country and proof for that were the following Kefauver hearings in 1950, which in turn were established on those same cases

Were they charged and convicted for being part of a criminal enterprise or were they charged with specific crimes? There were convictions before 1957, I wasn't trying to say that.

Well they were obviously convicted for being part of some specific crimes but they were also accused for being members of the Capone mob for example

Yes but that carried no legal weight that automatically lead to steeper sentences, it would be up to the judge to factor that in when he issued a conviction. If you and I were defendants at one of these trials and it came out you took part in one robbery but had no priors whereas I had 15 priors in 20 years, I'd receive the steeper sentence where you might get some leniency. If RICO had been involved, you'd be looking at probably half of the sentence I'd be facing.

Luciano was described as the head of an enterprise, but they could only link him to prostitution which he's been speculated not to have been fully guilty of, but it was enough to charge him that way. I'd say that once the law had these guys in the crosshairs they struck- Morello 25 years, Capone 10 years, all for crimes that, had they not been who they were, with the reputations they had, would have received lighter sentences.

[Villain]

Prior to the 1950's, the laws just were not in place to target criminal enterprises/gangs. Investigations had to work on nabbing a suspect and getting him to name his accomplices.

I have dozens of examples from the 1940s in which the gov prosecuted many gangsters as being members of large criminal organizations...they maybe didnt refer to it as the Mafia at the time and they didnt have the RICO act, but still the agents were quite aware regarding the existence of some type of huge and single organized criminal body within the country and proof for that were the following Kefauver hearings in 1950, which in turn were established on those same cases

Were they charged and convicted for being part of a criminal enterprise or were they charged with specific crimes? There were convictions before 1957, I wasn't trying to say that.

Well they were obviously convicted for being part of some specific crimes but they were also accused for being members of the Capone mob for example

Yes but that carried no legal weight that automatically lead to steeper sentences, it would be up to the judge to factor that in when he issued a conviction. If you and I were defendants at one of these trials and it came out you took part in one robbery but had no priors whereas I had 15 priors in 20 years, I'd receive the steeper sentence where you might get some leniency. If RICO had been involved, you'd be looking at probably half of the sentence I'd be facing.

Luciano was described as the head of an enterprise, but they could only link him to prostitution which he's been speculated not to have been fully guilty of, but it was enough to charge him that way. I'd say that once the law had these guys in the crosshairs they struck- Morello 25 years, Capone 10 years, all for crimes that, had they not been who they were, with the reputations they had, would have received lighter sentences.

Ok, I agree but as you already said we have "few" examples like Capone who obviously received much more time because of their reputations, but dont forget other examples such as the Hollywood extortion case which in fact was one of those first national organized crime cases that involved the Mafia, and as a matter of fact it was one of the main reasons for the creation of the Kefauver hearings at the time, meaning the gov received a huge start in connecting the dots