e would not have presented this flawed argument. Rogovin and Martens respond to these arguments by Albini in this way. First to the suggestion that Cressey’s definition was the downfall to his investigations, Rogovin and Martens make it sound as though all else has failed for Albini, so the only option left to him is to attack the definition. They claim that although a precise definition would be useful, it is not necessary. The significance of the findings is far more important then the definition itself. They both feel that the quality of Cressey’s material exceeds any thing a lack of definition could possibly hinder. Rogovin and Martens exposing how the government was wrong in assessing the existence of organized crime in the past respond to the second assertion that Cressey didn’t critically evaluate the data he received. They site examples of convictions that have taken place in courtrooms and how the federal government itself had to finally acknowledge the presence of a criminal underworld. The third of three major complaints by Albini is one of the few, if not only point agreed upon by all authors. The absence of a proper historical background is evident in Cressy’s publication, Theft of the Nation. However, Rogovin and Martens defend Cressey by making the point that he was most likely depending upon experts in other areas and that they misled him in to being mistaken about the historical perspectives. Albini concludes his arguments by saying that Cressey has given individuals in the field of organized crime a model to work from. Even if the model is not the correct model in Albini’s eyes, nonetheless its still something for others to learn from. For scientists, the wrong answer must be found numerous time before the right answer can be uncovered. Albini just feels Cressey’s model and ideas are just that…another wrong answer helping to find the right one.Rogivin was enraged b...
