human rights & state crime

how do green & ward define state crime?

illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or with the complicity of, state agencies

what is the scale of state crime?

the state has enormous power to harm on a large scale - 262 million people were murdered by governments in the 20th century

how does the state have power?

• it can define what is & isn’t criminal

• can conceal it’s crimes & evade punishment

• undermines system of justice

• principle of national sovereignty

what is the principle of national sovereignty?

states are the supreme authority in their own borders, making it difficult for international or external authorities to intervene

what 4 categories of state crime does mclaughlin identify?

• political crimes

• crimes by security & police forces

• economic crimes

• social & cultural crimes

what 2 categories of state-corporate crime do kramer & michalowski distinguish?

• state-initiated

• state-facilitated

what is state-initiated corporate crime?

when states initiate, direct or approve corporate crimes e.g., challenger space shuttle disaster

what is state-facilitated corporate crime?

when states fail to regulate and control corporate behaviour, making crime easier e.g., deepwater horizon oil rig disaster

what are the categories of war crimes?

• illegal wars

• crimes committed during war or its aftermath

what are illegal wars?

wars that are not self-defence or declared by the UN security council e.g., US led wars in iraq

what is an example of crimes committed during war or its aftermath?

USA’s colonisation of iraq where they illegally changed the constitution in order to privatise the economy

what does chambliss define state crime as?

acts defined by law as criminal and committed by state officials in pursuit of their jobs as representatives of the state

what are the criticisms of chambliss’s definition of state crime?

• ignores the fact that states can make laws & avoid criminalising their own actions

• states can make laws that allow them to carry out harm

• leads to inconsistencies across countries or cultures

how does michalowksi define state crime?

legally permissible acts whose consequences are similar to those of illegal acts

what are the strengths of michalowski’s definition of state crime?

• prevents states from ruling themselves out of court by making laws

• creates a single standard to be applied to all states

what are the criticisms of michalowski’s definition of state crime?

• harm is vague & objective

• who decides what level of harm makes it a crime?

what is the labelling theorist definition of state crime?

the social audience for an act determines whether it is a crime

what are the strengths of the labelling theorist definition of state crime?

• recognises that state crime is socially constructed and so can differ between times and cultures

• prevents the sociologists from imposing their own definition of state crime

what are the weaknesses of labelling theorist’s definition of state crime?

• vaguer than social harms

• unclear who is supposed to be the relevant audience

• unclear what to do if multiple audiences have multiple interpretations

• ignores that audience’s definitions may be manipulated by ruling-class ideology

what is international law?

law created through treaties and agreements between states

what is rothe & mulle’s definition of state crime?

any action by or on behalf of a state that violates international law and/or a state’s own domestic law

what are the strengths of rothe & mulle’s definition of state crime?

• does not depend on the sociologist’s own personal definition of harm or the relevant social audience

• international law is intentionally designed to deal with state crime

what are the weaknesses of rothe & mulle’s definition of state crime?

• international law is a social construction involving the use of power

• focuses largely on war crimes & crimes against humanity, ignoring others e.g., corruption

what are human rights?

natural & civil rights that every human holds

what is schwendinger & schwendinger’s definition of state crime?

the violation of people’s basic human rights by the state or its agents

what are the strengths of schwendinger and schwendinger’s definition of state crime?

• virtually all states care about their human rights as they are a global norm

what are the weaknesses of schwendinger & schwendinger’s definition of state crime?

• cohen: not all violations of human rights are self-evidently criminal

• disagreements regarding what is & isn’t a human right

what are the ways of defining state crime?

• domestic law

• social harms & zemiology

• labelling & societal reaction

• international law

• human rights

what explanations are there for state crime?

• the authoritarian personality

• crimes of obedience

• modernity

what is the authoritarian personality?

adorno et al’s identification of a personality that includes a willingness to follow orders without question

how do crimes of obedience explain state crime?

• many people will obey authority even when harming others

• green & ward: individuals who became torturers were re-socialised to do so

• states create enclaves of barbarism to make it seem like a job

what 3 features did kelman & hamilton find that produce crimes of obedience?

• authorisation

• routinisation

• dehumanisation

how does modernity explain state crime?

bauman argues the key features of modernity make it possible

what are the key features of modernity & how do they make state crime possible?

• division of labour: small tasks make individuals feel less responsible

• bureaucratisation: normalises it by making it a repetitive, routine job

• instrumental rationality: efficient methods are used

• science & technology

what are the criticisms of explanations of state crime?

• not all genocides are carried out in a highly organised division of labour that allows individuals to distance themselves e.g., Rwandan genocide

• ideological factors have to be considered

what is the culture of denial?

where states now make a greater effort to conceal or justify their human rights crime in face of the growing pressure of human rights movements

what 3 stages are in a spiral of denial?

• deny it happened

• say it could have happened, but it was something else

• justify what it was

what are neutralisation techniques?

what delinquents & states use to justify their behaviour and impose a different construction of the event from what might appear to be the case

what 5 neutralisation techniques do sykes & matza identify?

• denial of victim

• denial of injury

• denial of responsibility

• condemning the condemners

• appeal to higher loyalty