You seem to be confused but are not realising it, as I've often noticed. This is literally semantics:
On balance, presumably the mafia also takes actions you disagree with. If the mafia somehow only did charity while claiming to be organized crime, I doubt you'd disagree with the charity aspect.
I don't know of anyone who uses the term 'mafia' to describe an organisation that only does charity. Do you? Basically, you were effectively asking, "Does 'the mafia' really mean that mafia that we know?", and that's textbook semantics.
I presume the bit where you "insist that the actual topic be addressed in a discussion post about the topic" is this?
OP isn't looking for character judgments, but rather whether actions can/should be judged on their own merit regardless of motivation. The answer to that question is "obviously yes", even if I trust the future actions of those with known negative motivations less.
Not sure why you think this question doesn't apply to the mafia example. The mafia, as people understand it, is formed with the creation of wealth by illegal and immoral means as one of its primary ends. To this end, it might need some form of acquiescence by society. It can operate by inspiring fear alone, but that might not be the most effective way of doing it. So, historically, it has also done acts of charity. But this action cannot be seen independently of its primary ends or motives, which includes creating wealth by illegal and immoral means. So, no, its action cannot be judged on its own merit in this case, and the answer is therefore not "obviously yes".
Could actions be judged on their own merits sometimes? Maybe; when they can clearly be divorced from the ultimate ends or motives of the actors. That's why I opened my first post with "Depends". But that wasn't what I wanted to get into then. I went on to say that people often judge what they see before them, regardless of questions of merit, which often renders the original question moot.
All this clearly flew over your head, though.
