The people V. Henry Ginsberg
The setting of the case took place in the 19th century at the time when gambling took place in an uncontrolled environment. The current way of gambling is different from the 19th century due to advancement in technology. Gambling is now legal in most parts of the world, unlike in the 19th century where it took place illegally. The illegality of gambling back then was not taken seriously as a harmful vice; therefore, it made it easy for activities such as robbery and corruption to take place. The case between the people V. Henry Ginsberg is an example of gambling can lead to robbery. Joseph Goldstein, Louis Scharf, Benjamin Bochner witnessed against Edward Ginsberg who was the accused. The case provides a platform to find out why gambling can result in corruption, crime, and injustices. Organized crime in history is linked to gambling. There are still controversies as to concerning the extent to which gambling could lead to crime. Legalizing of gambling in the current generation has even made it hard to identify vices that come with gambling.
Crime on trial
The case involved two parties, which are the people and Jacob Ginsberg. The people represent the prosecution while Jacob Ginsberg was the defendant. The assistant attorney general James Donohue represented the people while Abraham Horowitz was the defense lawyer. The trial took place on December 19, 1921, and was title as robbery in the first degree. Witnesses who testified against the defendant were Joseph Goldstein, Louis Scharf, and Benjamin Bochner. The three witnesses stated that they were survivors of the robbery. The three claim to have lost money during the robbery, which includes $210, $65, and $6000 respectively. Benjamin Bochner who had not been subpoenaed appeared from the middle of the hearing and requested to testify against Jacob Ginsberg. Edward Ginsberg, who was on defenders side, claimed that Bochner had tried to solicit for a bribe of $500.
Defendant’s argument
Abraham Horowitz, while defending his client, argued that Bochner’s witness statement could not be used against his client since Bochner was lying that he knew Jacob Ginsberg by face. While being a question, Bochner said he had not mentioned to the police about Jacob being a crime scene. The police officer who was on duty on the day of crime did talk to the three witnesses, but the witnesses had not mentioned about Jacob Ginsberg. The police further claimed that he had inquired from Bochner about the name of the person who robbed them. In his response, Bochner said he did not know which was not true since Jacob and Bochner had known each other for nearly fifteen years. Jacob Ginsberg had a cut on his face, which made it easy to identify. Abraham stated, “And you do not know whether he had a cut on his face? Look at him,”. Moreover, the defense argued that it was against the law for Bochner to be a witness, yet he had failed to take subpoena from the district attorney general. He stated, “Did you get the subpoena in this case?”
Prosecutor’s argument
James Donohue arguments based on previous offenses committed by Jacob. The offender previously was convicted for disorderly conduct, for instance, pushing. He stated, “Pushing and jostling, isn’t that right?” He further adds that the culprits’ brother had partly reimbursed the victims for the losses incurred during the robbery. The reimbursement is a clear indicator that indeed, the robbery had taken place, and it was likely that Jacob Ginsberg was the leader. James Donohue asked, “And don’t you know that all the witnesses in this case, except Mr. Bochner, got back their money?”
Key themes
Corruption
Gambling is considered an underworld activity whose operation is controlled by crime syndicates. The personnel who run gambling, whether legally or illegally often resort to corruption for them to operate without being stopped by local officials. The case of people v Ginsberg might not have faced complains of corruption from those in authority, but there was an instance of corruption. Edward Ginsberg claimed that Bochner had solicited for a bribe of $ 500. Bochner is seen as a corrupt individual; his situation represents how gambling today is facing corruption. Most people are against gambling, but it would be hard for them to raise since the issue since most of the officials is corrupt and even elected individuals have benefitted from gambling money (Smith, Wynne, Hartnagel, 2003). Sports gambling provides an example of how gambling has resulted in corruption. The current sports gambling is facing match-fixing, which has since damaged sports reputation. Corruption is seen through ways such as bribes paid to players or match officials.
Crime
Gambling through media such as movies, Tv shows, novels, or popular culture as part of organized criminal networks (Turner, 2008). The clichés of hardcore crimes such as robbery and cheating do not apply to the current gambling environment. Criminal elements linked to gambling has shifted to new forms of crime, such as money laundering. The robbery was normally in the 19th century where mobsters and gangs could raid gambling places for money. The case of people v Jacob Ginsberg shows how robbery with violence is associated with gambling. While taking part in a gamble, the three witnesses were robbed with guns. The accused took everything valuable, including Bochner’s diamond ring. Gamblers often carry lots of money, therefore, making it a target for robbery and violence. Money is seen as the main thing in gambling when Bochner said, “yes sir; and I always carry much money on my person, one, two or three of four thousand dollars or more. Just like the old gambling methods, the current generation of gambling involves lots of money. Gambling has therefore led to money laundering through casinos where a person can easily gamble with little money but at the end of it cash out large amount while claiming to have been proceeds of gambling.
Justice
Gambling is considered as a harmless vice; therefore, it was hard and is still hard for laws to be enforced with prioritization. The documents written from the case of people vs. Jacob Ginsberg confirms who officials in this case George Murray were not keen on taking up the case with priority. The police officer seems he had not seriously taken up the case; for instance; he knew the accused had been indicted as Henry Ginsberg. At the night of the robbery, it is reported that the police were in the neighborhood but never bothered to check what was going on at Joseph Goldstein house an indicator that rap gambling was not considered as much of a vice. According to Eadington (2003), gambling is, therefore, acceptable in modern society, which has made it hard to get justice whenever gambling-related crime takes are reported. In the case of people vs. Jacob Ginsberg, it is difficult for both the defendant and the accuser to get justice. The prosecution team claims that their clients were robbed at gunpoint losing their belonging. On the other, hand the defendant accuse the witnesses of falsely claiming that Jacob Ginsberg was indeed the leader in the robbery.
Conclusion
The people vs. Jacob Ginsberg is complex, therefore making it hard for the jury to rule out on fair and true judgment. Joseph and Louis Scharf testified that they were not able to identify the suspect during the robbery since they had hats that covered their identity. On the contrary, Benjamin Bochner claimed that he positively saw the defendant since he did not have a mask on. The conflicting statements made it difficult for the jury to come up with the conclusion of the case. Gambling today is different from the 19th century, but the vices face through gambling back then and today are almost similar. There are high chances that gambling will continue to attract criminal activities such as money laundering, robbery with violence and corruption currently and in the future. Gambling, especially in casinos, has acted as a haven where criminals can carry out their activities without being. The vices faced due to gambling continue changing due to technology advancement. Current technology has allowed for online gambling, thus making it easy for corruption practices such as much fixing. The only way to prevent criminal activities due to gambling is to treat it as a harmful vice. Treating gambling as harmful, just like drugs or child trafficking will give way for the establishment of strong laws to control gambling.
References
Eadington, W.R.. ( 2003). Values and choices: The struggle to find balance with permitted gambling in modern society. In Reith, G.. (Ed.), Gambling: Who wins? Who loses? (pp. 31–48). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Smith, G.. Wynne, H.. Hartnagel, T.. ( 2003). Examining police records to assess gambling impacts: A study of gambling-related crime in the City of Edmonton. A study prepared for The Alberta Gaming Research Institute. Edmonton. Retrieved September 14, 2008, from http://www.ncalg.org
Turner, N.E.. ( 2008). Games, gambling, and gambling problems. In the pursuit of winning: Problem gambling theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33–64). New York: Springer.
