State + green crime

Evaluate sociological explanations of state crime. (1)

One definition of state crime is that it is a violation of human rights.

This idea is based on the idea of harm inherent in the idea of human rights rather than legal definitions of unacceptable behaviour.

The idea of state crime as a violation of human rights, raises the question of how harm is defined and on what basis human rights are established.

EXAMPLE

Courts in Saudi Arabia continue to sentence people to be punished by torture for many offences, often following unfair trials.

Other violent forms of punishment, e.g., amputations, is also used, including “cross amputations” on people found guilty of robbery.

Specifically, Saudi Arabia is among the world’s top executioners, with dozens of people being executed by the state every year, many of them in public beheadings.

Evaluate sociological explanations of state crime. (2)

Another definition of state crime

State crime is a violation of domestic law

Officials who, when representing the government, break the laws of their own country.

EXAMPLE

Boris Johnson broke the law by attending a party in the Downing Street gardens during lockdown on 20th May 2020

Evaluate sociological explanations of state crime. (3)

An example of state crime, e.g., genocide + the link with obeying authority.

Adorno explains state crime with a psychological approach, examining how state crime took place.

As we know, genocide is organised by leaders, but happens with the cooperation of police and civilians.

Adorno was a refugee from Nazi Germany, who was interested in why ordinary Germans became fascist, and why they want along with the Holocaust.

Adorno concluded that many Germans had an Authoritarian personality: an extreme level of respect for authority figures and consequently are more likely to follow their orders.

This was caused by the way in which German children were raised:

- Excessively harsh and punitive parenting

- Which caused children to feel anger towards their parents.

- Fear of punishment caused people to not directly confront their parents, but rather to identify with and idolize authority figures.

The implication of this is that people with an authoritarian personality are fundamentally different. And more likely to commit genocide.

This explains why individuals comply with authoritarian regimes even when actions are immoral + helps to explain the willingness of ordinary people to participate in state crimes.

Furthermore, Kelman and Hamilton (through studying the My Lai massacre)- found violent states can encourage their citizens to take part in crimes, like genocide through 3 ways:

1. Authorisation – making it clear to individuals they are acting with govt approval. Citizens feel it is their duty to obey.

2. Routinisation – making the behaviours seem like a normal part of the day’s work. E.g. they may be trained to see their victims as enemies or go to a military camp to carry out their duties – like doing a job.

3. Dehumanisation – portraying the victim as enemies who do not belong and to whom the normal rules of behaviour do not apply.

This explains how state power and social constructs creates an environment where crimes become a routine + their focus on authorisation and routinisation helps explain why individuals feel detached from the moral implications of the act.

Evaluate sociological explanations of state crime. (4)

Bauman- Modernity

Bauman argues that state crime is often seen as the mark of an uncivilised, irrational society.

However, some of the features of civilisation + rational thinking, was seen in the holocaust.

EXAMPLE

He argues the holocaust was like a modern industrial factory where the product was death.

The holocaust demonstrates this through:

- The division of labour. Each person was responsible for a specific task, so that no one felt personally responsible.

- Bureaucratisation. Workers had a rule governed, repetitive job.

- Science and technology. E.g., use of railways; gas.

Evaluate sociological explanations for the types and patterns of green crime. (1)

Debate between criminologists about what defines as a green crime.

Wolf defines green crime as: green crime/environmental crime/eco-crime describes actions that break laws protecting the environment. Actions may be defined as illegal in some countries but not in others.

As well as laws differing between countries. Within countries, laws may change over time.

This demonstrates that an action defined as a green crime, is a social construction, and dependent on the country or period it is acted in.

Moreover, there is a debate between transgressive vs traditional criminologists- over whether non-illegal acts that harm the environment, should be counted as green crime.

White (a transgressive criminologist): considers environmental crime to be any human action that causes environmental harm, whether or not it’s illegal.

This demonstrates that for transgressive criminologists, what defines as a crime, is not defined by the law.

This links to zeminology= the study of harm, rather than the precise study of criminality.

EXAMPLE

1984 Bhopal Disaster (India)

A gas leak at the Union Carbide chemical plant affected 500,000 people. By 2012, around 25,000 had died, and 120,000were still suffering serious effects like blindness and birth defects.

- Traditional criminology: Union Carbide broke health and safety laws.

- Transgressive criminology: Union Carbide intentionally exploited weak regulations in countries with less concern for health, safety, and the environment.

Evaluate sociological explanations for the types and patterns of green crime. (2)

There are different types of green crime.

South et al: defines the 2 types as: primary green crime and secondary green crime:

- Primary green crime- crimes that are committed directly against the environment or direct acts that cause harm to the environment.

EXAMPLE

Deforestation; 1/5th of the world’s rainforests were destroyed between 1960- 1990. The growth of palm trees, trees for packaging, fields for cattle, etc all for consumers in the west leads to the destruction of the rainforest.

- Secondary green crime- this comes from breaking the rules that try to protect the environment.

EXAMPLE

State violence against people protesting about climate change – French secret service blew up a Greenpeace ship killing a charity worker – indigenous people across America have been killed and attacked as they protest the destruction of their sacred lands.

Evaluate sociological explanations for the types and patterns of green crime. (3)

Green crime is interlinked with state crime.

Changing behaviour of the state= causes changes in the environmental damage/crimes committed.

State power has caused a rise of human made green crimes.

Pre-industrial era: risks for environmental harm were natural (e.g., because of blizzards, storms).

Now: increasingly the threats to the environment are human made- they are manufactured risks, not natural risks (Beck).

These manufactured, human made risks, often can produce green crime.

Manufactured risks include cargo ships polluting the ocean, because of increased trading (permitted by the state, to boost the economy).

Link with state crime specifically:

- The state fails to acknowledge and regulate human made manufactured risks.

- They fail to acknowledge the impact of warfare on the environment (shows state-imposed war= a form of green crime but is ignored).

- Military/warfare poses the greatest human made manufactured risk, governments imposing war, legitimises the use of environmentally damaging weapons e.g., bombs.

Evaluate sociological explanations for the types and patterns of green crime. (4)

Patterns in who commits different green crimes.

Marxists argue green crimes arise because of transnational corporations and nation states.

White argues this is because they hold an ‘anthropocentric’ view of the world:

- This is the view of big business and many govts.

- Humans have the right to exploit the environment and other species for their own benefit.

- This suggests that the most important consideration for nations is the well-being of their citizens achieved through economic development and growth, and the environment is only a secondary consideration when forming economic policies, exploiting raw materials, manufacturing goods, and disposing of waste products.

Regarding the perpetrators and victims of green crime, sociologist Wolf has identified four primary categories:

- Individuals: e.g., littering.

- Private businesses (a form of corporate crime- in which countries flout rules and regulations to maximise profits, at the expense of the environment): e.g., illegal waste dumping.

- States and governments: e.g., polluting through military organisations (as unexploded bombs/landmines, can not only be dangerous to humans, but can also leak toxic chemicals into the soil).

- Organized crime groups: e.g., mafia involved in toxic dumping, smuggling endangered species and illegal coastal development.

Link to Marxism: the way in which perpetuators of green crime are illustrated in official statistics:

- State is selective in law enforcement.

- A they don’t want to damage profits, frighten away capitalist investors or employment by big business.

- Even when state does impose punishment, forms of punishment are often minimal, and sanctions are minor.

- With such minor sanctions, more profitable for a company to pay the fine and carry-on breaking laws and regulations then stop harmful activities.

EXAMPLE

Environment Agency says waste crime (dumping rubbish illegally) is often organised, large scale and profitable but in 2011-12 largest fine given was £170,000 and only 17 quite short prison sentences handed out.

As well as this, Sutherland argues big transnational companies who commit environmental offences have power and legal resources to either avoid any penalty or avoid being seen as criminal.

Link to labelling theory/interactionism + negotiation of justice.

Evaluate sociological explanations for the types and patterns of green crime. (5)

Differences in the patterns, of the victims of green crime.

Potter (2010) argues that social divisions are replicated by environmental harms.

– Green crimes mainly committed by the rich and powerful.

– Least powerful – W/C, poor, BME more likely to be victims of green crimes in both developed and developing world

– ‘environmental racism’ those who suffer the worst are of different ethnicity to those causing the damage – usually white.

White gives examples of this

– developing world increasingly becoming the dump site of the developed worlds unwanted waste

– developed world W/C more likely to experience impact of industrial accidents then M/C and at greater risk of pollution.