osed by Albini is a critical evaluation of Donald Cressey’s work. Within the pages of the article are numerous reasons why Cressey was wrong in the conclusions he arrived at and how he was careless in his research to attain those conclusions. Throughout the article Albini makes allegations of ignorance and utter disregard for information directed toward Cressey that would refute the very conclusions Cressey has been heralded for reaching. In contrast, Rogovin and Martens derived an article that supports the same conclusions which Albini criticizes. They continually find and state examples of how they feel Albini to be wrong and Cressey to be correct. They have determined that Albini’s article has no foundation and no merit, which leads Into the effectiveness and correctness of Cressey. To start off the criticisms by Albini of Cressey, Albini claims that Cressey feared for his life. Albini attributes this fear to Cressey’s “unquestioning and, in many cases, uncritical acceptance of the government data.” He, being Albini, protests that Cressey warned him once of the dangers of pursuing his research in the field of organized crime. He did not fault Cressey for this fear, but later on in Albini’s own research, he claims to have discovered that there was never any need for fear, organized crime held no ill will toward researchers. Rogovin disputes this claim by Albini by explaining that his encounters with Cressey never once left him with any impression that Cressey ever felt any danger, what so ever, from organized crime due to the information he uncovered. Rogovin continues along this line of rebuttal by referring to Cressey’s sense of humor. He states that if ever Cressey made a comment to Albini suggesting for him to be wary of his own safety, it must have been in jest. Another of Albini’s complaints with Cresseys’ views was that he seemed highly dependent on Joseph ...
