y the fact that Albini never voiced these concerns about Cressey’s views while Cressey was alive to defend himself and his ideas. Another problem that Rogovin and Martens have with Albini’s article is that he does exactly what he claims Cressey has done: relying on and siting the remarks made by Dintino. Rogivin and Martens protest that this is where “Albini is at his worst.” They conclude their article by making the statement that, “Cressey’s model of organized crime has stood the test of time.” They also add that there is far more work to be done in the study of organized crime. Either new ideas are going to have to be formulated or else the kind of article that Albini has written will continue to pop up in different forms for years to come. Rogovin and Martens apparently took offense to the views presented by Albini. Throughout the article were references to his ignorance, intelligence, education, or lack thereof. These two articles could not be more different in context, style, idea, and how the ideas were presented to the reader. The article by Rogovin and Martens was written direct response to the first article by Albini. Albini’s article was simply written as a matter of opinion, instead of a reaction to an opinion. That did make an exceedingly large difference in the content and character of each article, and that is what the differences in each can be attributed to…the timing of the publications....
