Enforcement of Gambling
Laws
One of the facts of life that permits people like Alfie Mart to operate unmolested is that people who enforce gambling laws do not always operate on the same wavelength as the public or the people who make the laws.
"Until the management of the prosecutorial and judicial systems is changed," warns the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, "it appears to us that decisions by the legislatures about how to treat various kinds of gambling offenders will be largely irrelevant to what actually happens . . . Legislators must address the way that enforcement is managed both by police and by prosecutors."1
Why? Because without enforcement and adequate punitive measures, merely making laws inevitably proves a governmental exercise in futility. That is why the values, the priorities, the personal commitment and the integrity of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges are of overwhelming importance in the maintaining of law and order.
Page 182
A Struggle Between Conscience and Expediency
Where gambling is concerned, judicial attitudes — like the attitudes of the public — appear to be changing. The result? A nation locked in a struggle between conscience and expediency. And you can count on the pendulum to swing rapidly in the direction of expediency, unless some powerful force for morality takes the initiative.
Who will do it? That's where you and I come in. For if anyone is going to do it, we Christians must lead in a new assessment concerning the benign or malignant qualities of gambling operations and the appropriate punishment, if any, for law violations.
State legislators across the nation must be made aware of these four compelling urgent questions:
1. Should more commercial gambling be made legal?
The issue has various challenging aspects, including the moral, the ethical, the economic and the psychological. Among the most intriguing of these aspects are largely untested speculations concerning the reliability of law enforcement. Lawmakers are uncertain of the possible impact of even limited legalized gambling on the enforcement of whatever antigambling laws may be retained.
Page 183
2. Should certain forms of social gambling be decriminalized?
Moral considerations lie always beyond the mere mechanics of research findings, but some lawmakers are probing deeply into the nature of current gambling laws and restudying the reasons for the existence of these restrictions. Laws prohibiting social gambling characteristically are unenforced and generally considered unenforceable. What, then, is their value?
Enforcement people suggest the primary value of such laws is their potential use in breaking up commercial gambling operations that claim to be harmless social activities. Lawmakers are analyzing the kind of responsibility placed on police officers by usually impractical laws against social gambling and inquiring into the ways and reasons some are enforced while others are ignored.
3. Should harsher penalties be set for serious gambling offenders?
Should legislatures mandate more severe penalties for, say, convicted bookies, just as they do for armed robbery felons and other perpetrators of crimes considered unusually dangerous? The issues are frustratingly complex. Few lawmakers claim to have developed more than a superficial or theoretical understanding of the significance of current penalties — either as punitive measures or as deterrents.
4. Is illegal gambling, after all, rightly classified among "victimless" crimes?
Violators of such laws characteristically receive more lenient treatment when brought before the court. But
Page 184
before our judicial system exonerates the bookie or the numbers racketeer on "victimless" grounds, another question demands an answer. What of dependents deprived of necessities of life because financial resources were recklessly wasted by the addicted gambler to whom they look as family provider? What about white-collar crime, escalating because someone must recoup a loss or pay off a gambling debt?
Are not deprived families and defrauded businesses often the true "victims" when antigambling laws are trampled under foot? And what about the compulsive gambler himself? Should he be pitied or should he be punished? To the degree that his psychological illness may render him genuinely not responsible for his actions, might not he, himself, be classified, then, as a "victim"?
Enforcement Policies Are Unclear
In 1978, U.S. Department of Justice agents Floyd J. Fowler, Jr., Thomas W. Mangione and Frederick E. Pratter conducted an extensive study of enforcement patterns for the department's National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. They expanded considerably on earlier findings suggesting widespread uncertainty among law enforcement officers as to their responsibility where illegal gambling is known to be taking place. The agents found 60 percent of all police officers in agreement that their departmental policies concerning the enforcement of gambling laws were unclear. Most of these, in fact, were able to point out what they classified as "gross inconsistencies" in the ways their enforcement programs were administered.
Page 185
The surveyers questioned police officers in 16 cities with populations in excess of 250,000 and learned that law enforcement officials tend to rank taking bets on sports and numbers among the least serious crimes they deal with. Illegal commercial gambling, in the words of a summary titled Gambling Law Enforcement in Major American Cities, is generally considered by police to be "less serious than prostitution and about on a par with after-hours liquor violations."2
Public Perception Is Fickle
The perceptions of the public are generally much the same as those of law enforcement officers. Several national surveys have indicated that public acceptance of legal gambling seems to follow legislative lead. That means even where sentiment is largely against activities like casinos and state lotteries, citizens will move toward acceptance once a particular kind of gambling has been approved by their lawmakers.
Majority segments of our population — more specifically, white Anglos — often are found opposing permissive gambling policies prior to legalization, but soon shifting to support once legislative approval is an accomplished fact. Lawmakers appear to exploit a wide latitude in this area. In a sense, they are allowed to act as public conscience. In the end, those who elected them to office probably will accept their decision as being "right," and seldom insist upon rethinking or review. In due time, the public can be expected to adapt to the new reality, whatever it may be. People who vote against a lottery in their state have been found among the first in line to buy Lotto tickets once the plan is implemented.
Page 186
Often the public runs ahead of lawmakers in the matter of permissiveness. Two studies made within the last decade in Washington, D.C., confirm that police officials in the nation's capital feel they get inadequate support from District of Columbia citizens in the enforcement of gambling laws. They complain they are stuck with a legal albatross; they get little credit if they do a good job but a lot of abuse if they fail.
Most Suspect Police Complicity
Nearly 80 percent of all Americans are convinced the "bookies have to bribe police in order to stay in business." They feel it is not likely such illegal operations would be able to exist without the knowledge and consent of the police. Only 60 percent of those surveyed feel police would act on a gambling complaint if a citizen made one — voicing the opinion that drug dealing or fencing of stolen goods would have a much higher priority.3
When police are lax in their enforcement of gambling laws — or any other laws, for that matter — they risk losing the confidence of the people of their community. When citizens know that illegal gambling is taking place on their own turf, they conclude almost inevitably that their police are inept or corrupt — or both. For the police, it's a classical catch-22. They have little to gain from effective enforcement of gambling laws, considering the low priority that rates with many citizens, but they have a great deal to lose if they fail to live up to public expectations.
Where citizens suspect that law enforcement officers are collaborating with gambling entrepreneurs, in fact,
Page 187
the attitude of the public becomes more demanding. When suspicion is aroused, people begin to clamor that their gambling laws be enforced.
A strange inconsistency has been revealed in the public's views concerning the enforcement of gambling laws. The findings of one survey indicate that 80 percent of all American adults feel those who accept illegal bets should be arrested — yet only 45 percent felt such people, if convicted, should be handed jail sentences. Overall, only 40 percent of American adults characterize the enforcement of gambling laws as being "very important," while 20 percent place it in a "not very important" category.4
Gambling Operations Linked to Organized Crime
Yet the Department of Justice has determined that two-thirds of all Americans believe revenue from illegal gambling ultimately goes to support more serious crimes such as loan-sharking and drug sales. An even greater percentage of the police officers themselves — some 80 percent — confirm that belief. Most law enforcement officers theorize that gambling operations usually have a link of some kind with organized crime. They are convinced that the long arm of the mob is able to reach into whatever area it chooses, and that the megabucks aspect of gambling operations make that profession a logical target.5
The Police Guide on Organized Crime, prepared for the use of law enforcement officers by the Technical Assistance Division of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, comments:
Page 188
Gambling activity is the most serious form of organized crime. This activity supplies the financial grease that lubricates the machinery of other operations, such as importation of narcotics, penetration of legitimate business, corruption of officials, and so on.6
This is not the statement of a religious or moralistic antigambling vigilante group; it is the statement of an objective and responsible agency of the United States government. It is strange, though, how readily the advocates of legalized gambling scoff at such statements and brand them the mouthings of church fundamentalists or radical do-gooders out of touch with the realities of life.
The Mob and the Megabucks
There is, admittedly, considerable ambiguity in the use of the phrase "organized crime." It can be misleading at best and dangerous at worst to use it as a coverall phrase, referring to stereotyped shadowy figures from the underworld who have Italian names, wear shoulder holsters and ride in black limousines.
The Department of Justice warns, however, against understanding the significance of organized crime on the American gambling scene or of ignoring the threat of those malignant forces in cities where they function. There can be little doubt as the importance of gambling revenues to "the mob," whatever criminal conspiracy the term might include, or wherever the mobsters might be operating. The reason is the megabucks.
Page 189
Gambling profits are big money and easy money, and that is precisely what organized crime is looking for.
And beyond the direct revenue from gambling — amounts of money so huge that the average citizen finds it difficult to grasp the significance of these statistics — is the revenue organized crime can realize from selling to bookies wire services, layoff services and other peripheral services necessary to their trade. Next are the incredibly steep interest rates charged by the loan shark, who seems seldom beyond the bookie's beck and call. The mob-related loan shark sinks his teeth into the hapless gambling loser and feeds on his losses. He has in his corner tough and merciless henchmen who can resolve quickly and efficiently any problems of collection. Since the shylock lender is not directly involved in the bookmaking, he is free of potentially culpable business connections with those who made off with the pigeons's money in the first place.
Though police officials usually place keeping revenue out of the hands of organized crime high on their list of law enforcement priorities, actual operational records do not confirm that priority. The Fowler-Mangione-Pratter report says "virtually no bookmaking arrests" had been made in nine of 16 major cities known to be fertile fields for illegal bookmakers and assumed to be infiltrated by organized crime. "Over half the departments in the sample were not aggressively enforcing laws against commercial gambling operators," the report charges.7
The Courts Fail to Provide Support
Police officers know painfully well that law enforcement
Page 190
involves more than vice squads, undercover work, sting operations and arrests. Without similar commitment on the part of prosecutors, judges and juries, the police can exercise relatively little control over illicit gambling operations. In general, police feel the courts fail to give them adequate support where gambling violations are concerned.
Their complaint is not against conviction rates. There seems to be general agreement between police, prosecutors and judges as to what constitutes a good case against a bookie or a numbers racketeer. Convictions run in excess of 70 percent of arrests made in the cities surveyed. The problem lies in what happens in the actual disposition of a case, even though a guilty verdict has been reached. Sometimes "guilty" is a mere technicality.
After an arrest is made, the police bow out and the prosecutor becomes the most important link in the chain of criminal justice. Court records suggest that not many gambling cases actually result in a trial of fact. Most cases are disposed of with a plea of some sort — "guilty" or "no contest" — or the defendants and their attorneys plea-bargain. Plea bargaining takes place when, in return for sparing the courts the expense of a trial, defendants accept a charge of less severity, thereby winning a lighter sentence.
Throughout the entire procedure, the prosecutor is the central figure. He decides whether to try the case or not, what charges to file, whether to settle for a misdemeanor or to go for a felony charge, whether to plea bargain or not and what penalty to recommend to the court.
Page 191
The Role of the Judge Often is Passive
That judges play a relatively passive role in the enforcement of gambling laws may seem ironic. In many of the cases, the defendant pleads guilty, the prosecutor recommends the penalty agreed upon in the plea-bargaining process and the judge simply imposes that sentence.
Only three kinds of sentences can put a bookmaker or numbers operator out of business: jail, a ruinously large fine or carefully supervised probation under the threat of a stiff sentence for noncompliance. Case records indicate, however, that the most common penalty after conviction for illegal commercial gambling is an astonishingly modest fine — on the average, less than $200. A fine in that range constitutes for the established professional gambling operator little more than a slap on the wrist, probably providing more cause for amusement than deterrent against further violations.
Illegal Gambling Goes on Undiminished
Some proponents insist that legalizing certain forms of commercial gambling — particularly placing these under the control of the state — will dramatically reduce the number of illegal gambling operations. The Fowler-Mangione-Pratter report, however, fails to support this theory.
"Increasing the number of available legal gambling options has not been shown to reduce illegal gambling," the agents contend. Their findings indicate that legalized gambling would have to be offered in packages providing specific and competitive alternatives to numbers
Page 192
betting, off-track horse race and dog race wagering and sports betting, all in the exciting emotional environment offered by the illegal gambling enterprises.8
The problem is not that people simply like to bet; it is that individual people who place bets like to do it in a certain way and under certain circumstances — even with certain people. Substituting a legal state lottery, for example, in place of a bet on your Super Bowl favorite placed with the neighborhood bookie who calls you by your first name, simply does not provide the emotional stimulation the seasoned wagerer requires.
Permissiveness Is Gaining Momentum
Through the democratic process, legislatures in some states have decided to allow models of limited legalized gambling, and the permissive movement is gaining momentum across the country. The inconsistency of this trend lies in the fact that betting is permitted when it is done by certain people with certain other people on certain outcomes of certain contests or choices, while in other cases it is prohibited.
Americans have entrusted to their local police, prosecutors and judges the responsibility for finding, apprehending, convicting and punishing those who operate in defiance of the laws of the land. Yet it cannot be denied that in most American communities professionals enjoying apparent immunity are involved openly in gambling operations that blatantly violate the codes of their municipality and the statutes of their state. Further, it is estimated that a significant number of adult Americans break the law with impunity by routinely placing illegal bets on horses, dogs, numbers and sports events.
Page 193
Needed: an Authentic Consensus Among Christians
The gambling dilemma in our nation is formidable, and workable solutions are complex and difficult to come by. One troublesome problem is the apparent absence of an authentic, consistent and reliable consensus. Opinions concerning the rightness or wrongness of gambling tend to change in both directions as new evidence or new experience comes to light. But we will do well not to let our public servants — police, prosecutors, judges or legislators — forget that their accountability is to us, not to their own whims.
Gambling is a human indulgence with an impressive history of excesses, abuses and judicial compromise. It may be that only Christians, united in the common bond of the Christ-life they share, can take an effective initiative in resisting this corrupting trend. We may not understand clearly all the implications, but we know that as believers we are not to "trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy" (1 Timothy 6:17).
Apart from our united voice, there may be no force in America capable — or even desirous — of turning the tide.
Page 194
Points to Ponder
1. In maintaining law and order in this country, who do you feel has the most important assignment: those who make the laws, those who enforce them, or those whose job is to prosecute law violators? In what way might conflict of interest undermine the integrity of any of the three?
2. Suppose, for example, you were a law enforcement officer — and, yes, a Christian — who considers prostitution a crime but does not "see any real harm" in gambling. Do you feel as a cop you might come down hard on violators of antiprostitution laws but be tempted to overlook violations when gambling laws are flouted? What would your Christian duty be?
3. Do you agree that the pendulum of public opinion and policy seems to be swinging in the direction of permissiveness? It is true that certain customs and attitudes are cultural and tend to change with the times, but are there well-defined concepts of right and wrong — moral absolutes — that are not subject to change? If so, how do we determine what these unchanging standards are?
4. Would you classify illegal gambling as a "victimless crime"? By what line of reasoning does someone figure he can "spare" a large amount of money if he loses it in a gambling casino or a poker game? How much money do you figure you could "spare" before you began to regret your foolhardiness in betting it?
5. Some 80 percent of all American adults feel gambling racketeers should be arrested, but only 45 percent
Page 195
feel they should be given jail sentences. What do you feel is an appropriate penalty for convicting gambling racketeers? Do you agree with 80 percent of America's law enforcement officers that revenue from illegal gambling ultimately goes to support more serious crimes such as loan-sharking and drug sales? Do you think stiffer jail sentences would help control that tragic picture?
Notes
1. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice 1978.
2. U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Gambling Law Enforcement in Major American Cities. Report prepared by Floyd J. Fowler, Jr., Thomas W. Mangione and Frederick E. Pratter (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1978).
3. Ibid., p. 33.
4. Pennsylvania Crime Commission Report, 1974.
5. Gambling Law Enforcement, p. 36.
6. U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Technical Assistance Division, The Police Guide on Organized Crime (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 32.
7. Gambling Law Enforcement, p. 38.
8. Ibid., p. 58.
Chapter Fourteen || Table of Contents