Foucaults Theories of Autocrats: Management Application

Foucaults Theories of Autocrats: Management Application In Discipline and Punish (1977) Foucault comments that a stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chains of their own ideas. How is this comment relevant for a discussion of work in contemporary organisations? French philosopher, Foucaults analysis and ideas are equally used in the contemporary management of companies and organisations. In this essay, I will analyse how his ideas in relation to the changes in the western can be used in the contemporary management of institutions and other managerial positions. Throughout the essay, the research will majorly focus on how autocrats treat their slaves by subjecting them to iron chains. Enchaining by the iron would, in this case, mean how the current leaders and managers subject their juniors to duties and implementation of policies and strategies that were not agreed upon by the employees without considering their contributions towards the formulation od the duties, therefore, considered as imposed by the leaders and managers. Equally, this essay will also evaluate how true politicians, competent and good managers, binds their junior in the chains of their ideas., The chains of their ideas would be taken to refer to either the policies, strat egies and terms and conditions that are passed upon the agreement of all the stakeholders or the ideas that would be proposed to the firm by the junior employees. Michel Foucault in his Discipline and Punish book used the term despot to refer to a person who dictates how things would be done without taking into account the contributions of his or her subjects. A despot, in this case, is more than just a dictator, rather, a person who does not respect the opinions of others. In his context, Foucault posited his ideas in relation to his analysis of mechanical and social changes that were behind the changes that were posed to the Western disciplinary system majorly based on the historical French documents that were accessed (Foucault, 1977). His analysis was majorly based in the hospital, school, camps and prisons through an in-depth evaluation of how torture, punishment, imprisonment and discipline. In his evaluation, the concept of torture is subjected to the suspects in two ways; one of the major incidents where torture was applied was during the process of investigating the suspect. During the investigation, the suspect was subjected to tortu re. Inflicting torture to the suspects compelled him or her to provide evidence. In case, torture failed to compel the suspect to produce evidence ascertaining his or her guilty; innocence was pronounced. The second incident where torture was applied was during the punishment of a crime offender with the aim of correcting him or her (Foucault, 1977). To begin with, in the contemporary organisational management, despotic leadership is bound to reduce the organisations productivity. In the operation of an organisation, an autocratic manager may not have strategic ideas and insights on how to manage the organisation (Howard, 2007). The employees under him or her may have these strategic ideas on how to operate the organisation in a manner that would increase the productivity and therefore, growth in the long run. To the disadvantage of the firms growth and productivity, the despotic manager does not take into consideration the proposals of the junior employees, in fact, he or she discourages them from challenging his ideas at all costs. As a result, he or she imposes the ideas and proposals to his or her junior employees for implementation regardless of the consideration of the impacts, both positive and negative; they would pose to the firm (Howard, 2007). The failure of the manager to count on the ideas and the opinions of the jun ior members of staff may amounts to the implementation of wrong strategies on account that they are not subjected to scrutiny by the implementation team. For instance, for a marketing organisation, the manager may impose old-fashioned marketing ideas for implementation by the junior employees. Based on the fact that the strategies were not subject to questioning or assessment by the necessary stakeholder, the junior members of staff would implement the imposed strategy which would serve no purpose for the firm. The manager should put into consideration the emerging trends in management, such as a rise of technology. His junior members of staff may be conversant with the technology-based ideas. Thus, their contribution would be beneficial to the organisation. As commented by Foucault, a stupid despot who, in this case, refer to an autocratic manager constrains his slaves in iron chains. In this case, imposing foreign ideas to the team of implementation without their stake in deciding on which strategy serves better for the organisations goals and objectives would be likened by the act of constraining the slaves in iron chains which, they have no knowledge on how to unchain themselves. Constraining the slaves into iron chains would serve no better reason for the despot because they iron chain would weaken their effort and ability towards serving their master. Second, autocratic management lowers the morale of the employees in the organisation. In this case, there are two types of employees. To begin with, the employees who are ready and willing to conform to the directives issued or imposed by the management. To this type of employees, it does not matter how beneficial the policies or strategies may be to the firm, therefore; they are loyal to the organisation regardless of the direction of may be taking concerning growth. The second type of employees are the employees who are concerned with the operations of the firm. Despite working for pay, these types of employees are concerned about the impacts of the strategies that are imposed by the management may pose to the organisation. Therefore, in a situation where the management has proposed strategies that may hurt the reputation and the performance of the organisation, they would challenge the strategies and propose the alternative strategies that would help the organisation regarding inc reasing the productivity and the growth of the firm. In the context of an autocratic leadership, the concerned employees would try to challenge the policies and strategies to the management and perhaps propose the alternative following their analysis of the situation. As usual, a dictatorial manager would reject their challenge and proposal and in fact, discourage them from challenging his or her in the future (Depaul, 2008). In some cases, the manager may issue sacking or dismissal threats to them. In such a case, the concerned employees morale would be lowered. In some cases, they may even resign to seek a better workplaces that would appreciate their contribution to the firm through encouraging their opinions whether challenging or supporting the proposed strategies. Working with the employees whose morale is lowered by the organisational culture significantly reduces the productivity and the reputation of the firm. Employees whose morale is low would have no motivation of workin g towards the organisational goals and objectives, rather, they would only conform to the imposed strategies (Depaul, 2008). In this case, the employee with low morale would be working for the organisation just because they need to earn a living. As commented by the Foucault, a stupid despot enchains his slaves to the iron chains which serves him to his disadvantage. The slaves are likely to be demotivated in serving their master, owing to the harsh working conditions. Third, as commented by Foucault, a stupid despot enchains his or her slaves to the iron chains. In this case, the slaves are not encouraged to make a proposal on the best ways of enchaining. Communication is thus, is a one-way type in disseminating information. In the contemporary organisational management. The employees and the employer are two important stakeholders that determine the success of the firm. The communication between the two levels ensures that the employees are presented with a platform to air their feedback towards the policies or strategies proposed to them by the management. In the context of a dictatorial management, communication is in a one-way structure. Communication applies only when the manager wants to impose or to give directives to the junior employees. The structure of communication, does not allow the employees to give their feeling, opinions, and feedbacks towards the implementation of the strategies that have been proposed and mostly, the feedback th at may appear to challenge the decision made by the management. Therefore, the management loses touch with the junior level or management (Tatnall Davey, 2015). The management may never learn about the negative impacts of the strategies and possible occurrence of a failure in the management in the future. In case, the employees may need to something from the management as an additional requirement for the implementation of the policy or strategy; the management may appear either reluctant or directly reject the request. There lacks a mutual relationship between the employees and the management. Instead, the organisation faces a power relation problem that in, this case, skewed towards the management. Unfortunately, the management works towards discouraging a possible equilibrium of the power relation between the two levels. In the long run, the organisation is bound to perpetually suffer from management challenges and perhaps a collapse in the future resulting from perpetual losses . Contrary to a stupid despot, Foucault commented on how a true politician should behave. In his comment, he posited that a true politician binds his slaves more strongly with the chains that come with their ideas. In this case, enchaining the slaves in their ideas would contemporarily mean managing the slaves, according to the management and ideas that they propose. Instead of grilling them with iron chains, a true politician should enchain them with their ideas to ensure that they are beneficial to him. Logically, if one manage people according to their ideas, despite being their boss, he or she will benefit from their labour owing to the increment in their morale based on the appreciation of their ideas in managing various situations. Therefore, both the organisation and the employees would equally benefit. Managing people according to their ideas reduces the communication gap. Through managing the people according to their proposals and ideas in the contemporary organisational management, the organisational manager creates a working environment that encourages the contributions of the employees at any point in the course of management (Iqbal, Anwar Haider, 2015). Therefore, the employees feel free with the management to contribute their ideas in the firm management whether it opposes or supports the strategies proposes by the management. Logically, the proposals may not necessarily be the best in the organisational management regardless of the position of the proposer. The reduction of the communication gap thus, creates a platform that encourages the discussions from all the stakeholder on what is the best for the firm (Tatnall Davey, 2015). The input of all the stakeholders is likely to come up with the best strategy that would ensure organisational growth and increase the reputati on and the productivity of the firm. Additionally, the reduction of the communication gap creates a platform where all the employees can easily communicate with their manager regardless of their job position. In this case, the management levels would easily learn about the challenges that are faced by the junior level employees, thus, resolving them as soon as they arise. Managing employees in the context of the organisational management, according to their ideas and opinions is, hence, beneficial for the organisational growth. Similarly, the management that appreciates the contribution of all employees in an organisation significantly reduces the employee turnover. In an organisation, most employees despite working with the aim of earning a living, they also work to develop their career (Valcour, 2014). An organisation that appreciates the contributions of the employees regardless of their position at the organisation motivates the employees towards working to develop their careers. Employees would feel motivated if the organisation has implemented his idea as part of the solution to a certain problem or as a strategy to maximise their output and minimising the inputs. In the long run, appreciating the contributions of the employees and the act of involving them in making critical decisions for the organisation enables them develop loyalty towards their employer. For an employee who has been hardworking and has been contributing positively regarding the strategy, formulation may be promoted from one job po sition to another. In this regard, the employees will have advanced his careers at the firm. The loyalty reduces the extents of employees resigning and dismissals due to a mutual relationship between the two levels of operation. Notably, managing the employees in their ideas creates a concept of teamwork. One of the ideas in which organisations should strive to achieve is the culture of teamwork. Through teamwork, the organisation is in a position to solve complex managerial situations. Through teamwork, the employees can combine their knowledge, skills, techniques regardless of their positions in the organisation and come up with the best strategy that would enable the organisation to solve the problems that are faced. In the context where management encourages works within the principles of democracy, employee develop loyalty towards the organisation; therefore, they are ready to work with other employees regardless of their level in the rank of job positions to contribute to the ultimate success of the organisation (Rosen, 2014). Unlike in the management context where the manager has the final say, the democratic organisational management encourages the employees to contribute to the ideas to the manageme nt or hold discussions within themselves or together with the levels of management to come up with the best ways of managing certain situations. It should be noted that in the context of a dictatorial leadership, there is often a cycle of a dictatorial level of management. For instance, most of the levels of management receive directives from the senior management for implementation. Therefore, even if the junior level employees who are expected to implement that strategy report negative impacts to their immediate boss, he or she cannot report back to the senior manager because he or she would not take the challenge. Therefore, organisational management should encourage democratic leadership that creates an enabling environment for teamwork. In conclusion, as commented by Foucault, a stupid despot who, in this case, is the organisational manager enchains his slaves with the iron chains, therefore, barring them from serving him efficiently. On the other hand, a true politician chains his or her employees with their ideas and opinions which, hence mean that he manages them according to their ideas. In the contemporary organisational management, there are two types of organisational leader just as posited by Foucault in his stupid despots and true politicians analogy. The two types of organisational managers are dictatorial and democratic. Majorly, democratic management is advantageous to dictatorial management. Through democratic management, the employees are empowered to make their contributions to the management on how they believe the firm would achieve the goals and objectives. In this case, the management creates a platform of contribution, therefore, it is an inclusive type of management. Dictatorial management, on t he other hand, is a scenario where one man runs the show. Most of the employees are discouraged from making their contributions which to a larger extents affects their morale negatively, thus, reducing the productivity of the organisation in the long run. (Word count:2502) References (Sr), B. H., 2007. A Study of Teacher-perceived Differences in the Leadership Styles of African-American and Caucasian Principals. 2nd ed. ProQuest: Michigan. DePaul, V. C., 2008. Creating the Intrapreneur: The Search for Leadership Excellence. 1st ed. Texas: BookPros, LLC. Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books. N, I. N, A. S. . H., 2015. Effect of Leadership Style on Employee Performance. Arabian J Bus Manag Review open access journal, 5( 5 à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¢ 1000146), pp. 1-6. Rosen, N., 2014. Teamwork and the Bottom Line: Groups Make A Difference. 1st ed. Abingdon-on-Thames: Psychology Press. Tatnall, A. Davey, B., 2015. Reflections on the History of Computers in Education: Early Use of Computers and Teaching about Computing in Schools. 1st ed. Berlin: Springer Science and Business management. Valcour, M., 2014. If Youre Not Helping People Develop, Youre Not Management Material. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/01/if-youre-not-helping-people-develop-youre-not-management-material[Accessed 22 March 2017]. Richard Kuklinski: The Iceman Richard Kuklinski: The Iceman INTRODUCTION At 7:00 he his awoke by the sound of his alarm clock. It was time to get his children ready for school. Richard Kuklinski walks down the staircase and sees his lovely family around the kitchen table. He kisses his wife Barbara on the check and continues to say good morning to his three children Merrick, Christin, and Dwayne. After getting ready, he drops his children off at their prestigious private schools and is off to work. To an outsider, it may seem that Richard has always lived an ordinary life. But little did they know, he was a deadly and notorious murderer. He thought of killing as a hobby and had absolutely no remorse for the horrible and cruel deaths he caused. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Early Life Richard had a horrific childhood. He was born at 222 Third Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, to a Polish family and was destined to live a hard and lonely life. His family was poor and highly dysfunctional. His father, Stanley Kuklinski, was a horrible, abusive father that Richard would only grow to hate. His mother, Anna, had no emotional attachment to any of her children at all. Violence was a daily occurrence in the Kuklinski household. Stanley would beat Anna and her children until they bled, and the gangs of the neighborhood were always causing fights with Richard. When Richard was just five years old, Stanley beat his older brother, Florian, to death. Richard vowed that he would one day kill his father and make him suffer the way he had suffered his whole life. Richard’s life was an uphill battle as he grew older. He was constantly teased at school and beaten up by boys in the town. He was forced to steal for food and many nights he went to bed hungry. He began stealing cars at the age of thirteen and found his only joy in life by reading crime magazines that he stole weekly. Inside, he was very lonely and grew up never knowing what love and friendship really meant. He was constantly tormented by a gang called â€Å"the project boys† and never had the courage to fight back, till one day when the fire in his eyes took over. Richard decided to go for the head of the gang, Charley Lane. He hated Charley almost as much as he hated his father and decided to grab a bat and hunt him down. When Richard finally found Charley he struck him in the head without hesitation. He went down like a ton of bricks and Richard became nervous. He checked for a pulse and there was none. He decided to throw Charley’s dead body in a pond under the Pulaski Skyway. Richard had killed for the first time at age thirteen. He felt powerful and invincible. He realized he liked killing. B. The Coming Up Roses Richard then developed vicious pastimes. He took great joy in the killing of animals. He would tie two cat’s tails together and hang them over a telephone wire and watch them claw each other to death. He also liked to put stray cats in the incinerator and watch them burn to death. A strong rage grew inside Richard and he yearned to kill more and more. He went from a weak, little boy to a dangerous man in just a few days. Richard was very eager to fight and often picked violent fights with men in bars. He was dangerous, willing to stab or beat anyone in his way. Word spread about his fearlessness and a gang called the Coming Up Roses was looking to invite him in. Richard gladly accepted and the five boys began to terrorize the city’s streets. The second man Richard killed was a cop named Doyle. He was very rowdy and a â€Å"loud-mouth,† Richard’s two least favorite qualities. The two men began fighting and Richard decided to leave the bar and wait for Doyle outside. Richard unnoticeably followed him to his car, where Doyle passed out drunk. This was Richard’s golden opportunity. He bought a quart of gasoline and poured in all over the car. Then, he lit a match from a safe distance and threw it on Doyle’s lap. Richard laughed as the car exploded and Doyle burned to death. The police investigated Doyle’s murder but found no suspects. The Coming Up Roses gang began committing more and more crimes and had accumulated a variety of guns, knives, and explosives. They began to receive attention from the De Cavalcantes, the most notorious mob family in New Jersey. A â€Å"made man† in the family, Carmine Genovese (also known as ‘Meatball’) decided to approach the gang. He had them over for dinner and asked them if they would be interested in killing a man for him. The gang agreed and gang member John Wheeler decided to be the gunman. The gang drove to Lincoln Park where the mark lived and saw him getting into his car. When it was time to shoot John became nervous and froze. Richard immediately took the gun and shot the mark in the head, driving away as if nothing happened. Meatball was impressed and began to give the gang a lot of work. They received a lot of money and began killing more and more. Richard decided to move out of his mother’s house and live with his new girlfriend Linda. Richard had grown to become very handsome and was towering over six feet tall. Linda was twenty five years old and liked Richard until he began beating her. Then she just began to fear him. Richard began to love killing people and the idea of â€Å"being able to decide when a man’s life ends.† He would walk through Manhattan and shoot the homeless men for fun. He killed them brutally: knives jammed into the brain, slitting the throat, tying a rope around their neck and hanging them off of his shoulder as if he was a tree. The police never suspected him of anything, and thought these bums were just killing each other. Richard was now a serial killer at only eighteen years old. One day, Albert Parenti, another made man in the mob and a friend of Carmine Genovese, approached Richard. He told him that two of his gang members, John Wheeler and Jack Dubrowsi, held up a mafia poker game and now had to die. He wanted Richard to do the job. Richard knew if he did not kill his two friends he would be killed himself, so he accepted the job and killed his two best friends. Linda became pregnant and Richard decided to marry her at City Hall, but Richard knew he did not love her. He had no emotional attachment to her or their child at all. Though he continued to commit various crimes, Richard’s business was slow. His boss, Genovese, was sent to jail and Richard was forced to search for new contracts. He contemplated killing his father, but Richard says â€Å"he could never find him.† On strange detail in all of Richard’s killings was that he would take any contract except killing a woman or a child. He said that â€Å"anyone who does doesn’t deserve to live.† III. KUKLINSKI’S KILLINGS A. A Contract Killer After he was released from jail, Genovese became Richard’s mentor. Richard was now a genuine mafia contract killer, making a living by killing â€Å"marks† for the mafia. Genovese gave him many brutal jobs and paid Richard to commit several murders. His first few killings from Genovese included a man in Chicago named Anthony De Peti for not being on time with his payments, a Cop named Jim O’Brian for tricking Richard into delivering heroine, and a mob boss named Arthur De Gillio. Genovese also asked for some special requests during the killings, for example, he specifically told Richard that after killing Arthur De Gillio he must â€Å"take all of his credit cards and shove them up his a**.† He was also told to break bones one by one to ensure the most pain in the victims. Richard’s killing empire expanded and he became affiliated with other mob families, such as the Ponti family from New Jersey, and the New York crime families. Because of his Polish ancestry, he was never able to become a made man in he mob, so he worked as an independent contact killer for all mob families. He was well-connected through Genovese and was raking in the money. Until one day, Genovese was shot. The murder remained unsolved and Richard was left to fend for himself. B. Barbara The contracts were no longer â€Å"rolling in† and he was forced to take a job at a trucking company. There, he met Barbara Pedrici, a beautiful Italian woman. She was 18 years old and Richard was now 26. They began talking and their boss became angry, knowing Richard was dangerous. He decided to fire him to protect Barbara. Unfortunately, his plan backfired. Richard asked Barbara out on a date and immediately fell in love with her, but he was still married to Linda. Fond of Richard, Barbara was angry that he was still married and he decided to get a divorce. They began seeing each other everyday and Barbara began feeling trapped by their relationship. Richard became violent and she was too afraid to break-up with him because she thought he would kill her. She soon became pregnant and Richard and Barbara married. Barbara knew he was violent but had no idea of his many brutal killings. He deiced to try and stay away from crime, in order to protect his family. But for Richard, this proved too difficult. Barbara’s uncle gave Richard a job in film lab, where he began pirating videos and eventually got into the pornography industry. He teamed up with his co-workers Paul Rothenburg and Anthony Argrila, who were supposedly â€Å"connected† to the mob. Richard owed them a lot of money and it didn’t seem as if he would pay it back soon. Argrila and Rothenburg became angry and decided to call their friend Roy DeMeo. Roy DeMeo was a â€Å"murder machine† and a picciotto in the Gambino crime family. C. Roy DeMeo One August day in 1973, DeMeo found Richard and confronted him about the money he owed his two partners. Richard, unaware of who DeMeo was and his mafia connections, gave him an attitude and told him to mind his own business. DeMeo left and returned minutes later with his â€Å"killing team,† Joe Guglielmo, Anthony Senter, and Joey Testa. Richard was surrounded with guns pointing at his head. He was armed of course but knew these men were for real. If he killed them, the mafia would kill him and his family. The four men knocked Richard down almost to a state of unconsciousness. Richard said, â€Å"they beat me good, but I knew if I fought back they’d kill me in an instant, so I just took it.† DeMeo realized Richard had a gun and admired that he didn’t use it. He took it as a sign of respect and courage. DeMeo and Richard talked over dinner at the Gemini Lounge in Brooklyn, a popular mafia hotspot. Both apologized and DeMeo said he would like to do business with Richard. In essence, this event was Richard’s rebirth. He was able to quit his job at the film lab and survive on killing. He was making up to $40,000 for each mark he murdered. He would also enjoy making them suffer before their death and being able to kill them up close, so he could see the look in their eyes as they died. DeMeo and Richard were a murder dream team and they made the leader of the Gambino family, Paul Castellano, very happy. Paul also promoted DeMeo to a sgarrista, and gave him more and more power in the family. As DeMeo’s premiere killer, this in turn gave Richard more power. His deaths were notorious in the mafia families, and his methods of killing were brilliant and gruesome. He always knew where to hide the bodies and was never a suspect in any case. By this time, Richard had three children: Merrick, Christian, and Dwayne. No one knew about his business and he was well liked around the neighborhood. He seemed like an ordinary family man that would never hurt a fly. In most of the murders he committed, Richard never even knew the victims name. He only knew one thing – that they must die, and this was a good enough reason for Richard. Some of his most famous murders were: Richard Hoffman, Gary Smith, Paul Rothenburg, and Henry Marino. He also started to use poison to kill his victims and always carried around his favorite poison with him, cyanide. Through his business, Richard met another contract killer, Robert Pronge. Richard said, â€Å"The two most dangerous men I ever met in my life were Roy DeMeo and Bob Pronge. Pronge was a complete psychopath. At least Roy had some semblance of being normal, but Pronge was way out there†¦dangerous beyond belief far more dangerous than Roy.† Robert Pronge drove a Mister Softee truck, which according to Richard was â€Å"purely brilliant.† They became good friends and acted as if they had known each other for years. Together, they came up with diabolical ways of committing murders and making their victims suffer. This led Richard to his next murder. He had stalked the mark for weeks and finally attacked. He used a tazer gun and then continued to tie his hands and feet. He took the man and headed to the woods in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He took the mark to a cave filled with vicious rats and secured him to the floor. He took his knife out of his sock and began to cut his face, arms, and legs – just enough for the rats to smell the blood. Richard set up a video camera and left as if nothing ever happened. Two days later he returned to the cave and saw only stained leaves where the man was. He picked up his video camera and watched the video. He saw the rats flock to the victim and cover his entire body. He watched them rip off his flesh and eat them alive. He felt no remorse for the victim and decided to take the tape to DeMeo and the DeCavalcante captain who had ordered the job. They loved it and praised Richard for his work. They told him â€Å"if he was Italian they would sponsor him [to be inducted into the mafia] in a minute.† D. â€Å"The Bigger They Are, The Harder They Fall† Shortly After, Richard received the most important murder contract of his life – the killing of Carmine Galante, the head of the Bonanno family. He was â€Å"out of control† and killed nine Genovese sggaristas. Every mafia family plotted and worked together to plan his downfall. DeMeo knew this would be a great opportunity for himself and Richard so he made sure the plot was flawless. Of course, everything went perfectly as planned and Galante had two bullets in his head thanks to Richard. This infamous murder introduced Richard to more and more connections. He was now receiving contracts from Sammy â€Å"the Bull† Gravano, underboss of the Gambino family and original friend to John Gotti. Gravano now had a special piece of work to do and he knew Richard Kuklinski was the man for the job. They met in a small parking lot and Gravano told him the mark’s name was Peter Calabro from Saddle River, New Jersey. For Richard this was just another day another job and he completed the murder successfully on March 14, 1980. Afterwards, Richard found out Peter was cop and never trusted Gravano again. Richard became well respected in the Gambino family and became friends with the Gotti family. On March 18, John Gotti’s youngest son, Frank, was killed by a car driven by John Favara. Nervous, John kept driving and went to his home shocked and afraid. He knew his life was now over. He had just dug his own grave. Richard, the Gotti family, and a few other accomplices were sent to capture Favara and tortured him to death. They then stuffed his dead body into a Fifty-five gallon drum. IV. THE POLICE INVESTIGATION A. The Iceman Richard longed to create his own mafia and started his own breaking and entering gang. His partners consisted of Al Rinke, Gary Smith, Danny Deppner, and Percy House. This gang became a very important part of Richard’s life and ultimately would help cause his downfall. With the help of his gang, Richard received his nickname – The Iceman. Richard called his only life-long friend Phil Solimene to help him with murder of Louis Masgay. He had come up with the brilliant plan of freezing the body to slow the decomposition. By preserving the body it would then be impossible to trace back to the actual time of death. Solimene and Richard took his body and dumped it in an ice cold well in North Bergen. Though this seemed like a normal murder to Richard, it would have severe consequences. Solimemene had a big mouth and told Richard’s gang about the murder. They in turn told their wives and friends who told their wives and friends. Richard’s secrets had finally leaked out after almost 40 years. Pat Kane was a young state trooper and was deeply devoted to his new job. He was honest, forthright, and willing to put anyone behind bars who deserved it. In October of 1982, his boss called him to his office. There were over a hundred burglaries in northern New Jersey and one burglar in the gang had been captured. It was now Kane’s job to talk to him and see if his information is true. The captured burglar was Al Rinke, and he gladly named all of his accomplices in order to save himself. He told them his accomplices were Danny, Deppner, Gary Smith, Percy House, and Big Rich. He was not sure of Richard’s last name and did not know where he lived. Richard had always made it a point to keep all of his information a secret. Kane asked Rink to point out all the homes they robbed and Rinke willingly obeyed. By the end of their conversation, Kane had completed an indictment with 153 charges against the gang members. He watched the homes of Deppner and Smith but they had never returned. He realized this hunt for the gang would be very difficult and devoted all his time to finding them. Meanwhile, Richard was still doing well. He had completed fifteen murder contracts in the last month and his record was still as clear as crystal. He bough a garage-warehouse in North Bergen and an entire truckload of fifty-five gallon drums to store his victims. He started dismembering the bodies and tearing them apart at the joints. He liked this method and enjoyed leaving traces of a body all around New Jersey.