I am grateful for Professor Michael Goldsmith's response to my discussion of RICO. It is always gratifying to find that one's writings have stimulated thought and debate.
Professor Goldsmith's criticisms of my discussion come in three parts. First, he claims that I have misread the history of RICO's adoption. Second, he objects to my criticisms of its scope. Third, he argues that the statute as now drafted serves prosecutorial purposes that would not be captured by the proposals I make for its replacement. Professor Goldsmith's arguments are not persuasive.
Gerard E. Lynch,
A Reply to Michael Goldsmith,
Colum. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/2169