State crime

Marx on state crime

Marxists argue we should investigate state crimes as well as those crimes by capitlism 

State crime def

State crime: illegal or deviant acts perpetrated by or with the complicity of state agencies. It includes all forms of crime committed by or on behalf of states and governments in order to further their policies 

scale of state crime GREEN AND WARD

Scale of state crime- Green and Ward: 262 million people murdered by governments in 20th century 

State and law

State is a source of law: states role Tod fine what is a criminal uphold law and prosecute offenders- however power means they can conceal crimes , evade punishment for them and even avoid defining its own actions as criminal int eh first placE

McLaughlin 4 categories of state crime

McLaughlin- 4 categories of state crime:

• Polciitcal crimes- corruption and censorshop

• Crimes by security and police forces- genocide, torture and disappearance rod dissidents

• Economic crimes- official violations of health and safety laws

• social and cultural crime- institutional racism

State corporate crime eg

Niger delta oil spill

War crimes e,g Kramer and Michalowski

Illegal war crimes: War on terror USA against Iraq and Afghanistan

Crimes committed durning war or its aftermath: Kramer and Michalowski identify other crimes committed during the Iraq War, including torture of prisoners. A US military inquiry into Abu Ghraib prison found numerous instances of 'sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses' of prisoners. Nine soldiers were convicted, the highest-ranking being a staff sergeant. No commanding officers were prosecuted. Personnel from private companies were also implicated but none were prosecuted.

STATE CRIME DEF: Domestic law Chambliss

Domestic law 

Chambliss- state crime as an act defined by law as criminal and committed by state officials in pursuit of their jobs as represnatives of the state

STATE CRIME DEF: Social harms and zemiology MIchalowksi

Social harms and zemiology 

Michalowksi- state crime as including not just illegal acts but also legally permissible acts whose consequences are similar to those of illegal acts in the harm they cause

STATE CRIME DEF: Social harms and zemiology Hillyard

Hillyard et al (2004) argue that we should take a much wider view of state wrongdoing. We should replace the study of crimes with "zemiology' - the study of harms, whether or not they are against the law. For example, these harms would include state-facilitated poverty.

Social hams and zemiology

This definition prevents states from ruling themselves out of court' by making laws that allow them to misbehave. It also creates a single standard that can be applied to different states to identify which ones are most harmful to human or environmental wellbeing.

However, critics argue that a 'harms' definition is potentially very vague:

• What level of harm must occur before an act is defined as a crime? There is a danger that it makes the field of study too wide.

• Who decides what counts as a harm? This just replaces the state's arbitrary definition of crime with the sociologist's equally arbitrary definition of harm.

State crime def: Labelling and societal reaction

State crime is socially constructed and so what people regard as state crime can vary over time and between culutres or groups- prevent sociologists imposing own def - as it may not be how particpants define the situation

International law

International law

Law created through treaties and agreements between states- Geneva convention on war crimes 

State crimes are social construction as involves use of power 

Though international law focuses largely on war crimes and crimes against humanity rather than other state crimes like corruption 

Human rights Schwindinger

Human rights 

Schwindinger- we should defin state crime as the violation of peoples basic human rights by the state or it agents, states that practice imperialism, racism, sexism or economic exploitation are committing crimes because they’re denying people of their basic rights 

 Risse- advantage of this def its virtually all states care about their HR image because these right are now global social norms- makes suspects able to shaming and can provide leverage to make them respect their citizens rights

Authoritarian personality : Adorn et al

'authoritarian personality"

Adorn et al (1950) identify an 'authoritarian personality" that includes a willingness to obey the orders of superiors without question. They argue that at the time of the Second Word War, many Germans had authoritarian personality types due to the punitive, disciplinarian socialisation patterns that were common at the time.

Crimes of obedience

Crimes of obedience

However, state crimes are crimes of conformity, since they require obedience to a higher authority - the state or its representative. For example, in a corrupt police unit, the officer who accepts bribes is conforming to the unit's norms, while at the same time breaking the law. Conforming to one norm means deviating from the other.

Research suggests that many people are willing to obey authority even when this involves harming others. Sociologists argue that such actions are part of a role into which individuals are socialised. They focus on the social conditions in which atrocities become acceptable or even required

Green and ward

Green and Ward (2102), in order to overcome norms against the use of cruelty, individuals who become torturers often need to be re-socialised, trained and exposed to propaganda about 'the enemy'.

States also frequently create 'enclaves of barbarism' where torture is practised, such as military bases, segregated from outside society. This allows the torturer to regard it as a '9 to 5' job from which they can return to normal everyday life.

Kerman and Hamilton

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) identify three general features that produce crimes of obedience:

• Authorisation When acts are ordered or approved by those in authority, normal moral principles are replaced by the duty to obey.

• Routinisation Once the crime has been committed, there is strong pressure to turn the act into a routine that individuals can perform in a detached manner.

• Dehumanisation When the enemy is portrayed as sub-human, normal principles of morality do not apply.

MODERNITY: BAuman

Zygmunt Bauman (1989) takes the opposite view: it was certain key features of modern society that made the Holocaust possible:

• A division of labour Each person was responsible for just one small task, so no-one felt personally responsible for the atrocity.

• Bureaucratisation normalised the killing by making it a repetitive, rule-governed and routine 'job'. It also meant that the victims could be dehumanised as mere 'units'.

• Instrumental rationality, where rational, efficient methods are used to achieve a goal, regardless of what the goal is. In modern business, the goal is profit; in the Holocaust, it was murder.

• Science and technology, from the railways transporting victims to the death camps, to the industrially produced gas used to kill them.

The Holocaust was a modern, industrialised mass production factory' system, where the product was mass murder. For Bauman, the Holocaust was the result not of a breakdown of civilisation, but of the very existence of modern rational-bureaucratic civilisation.

Eval BAuman

EVAL:

NOT ALL GNEOCIDES OCCUR THROUGH HIGHLY ORGANISED DIVISON OF LABOUT THAT ALLOWS PARTICPANTS TO DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM KILLIMG

Culture of denial: Alvarez

Alvarez (2010), recent years have seen the growing impact of the international human rights movement, for example through the work of organisations such as Amnesty International, and this is bringing pressure to bear on states.

Cohen

Cohen (2006) argues, states now have to make a greater effort to conceal or justify their human rights crimes, or to re-label them as not crimes. Cohen is interested in the ways states do this. While dictatorships generally just flatly deny any human rights abuses, democratic states have to legitimate their actions in more stage 'spiral of state denial: complex ways. In doing so, their justifications follow a three-

Stage 1 'it didn't happen; e.g. the state claims there was no massacre. But then human rights organisations, victims and the media show it did happen: 'here are the graves; we have the photos.

Stage 2 'If it did happen, "it" is something else'; e.g. the state says it was self-defence, not murder.

Stage 3 'Even if it is what you say it is, it's justified', e.g. to fight the war on terror.

Techniques of neutralisation

Techniques of neutralisation- justify crimes

Denial of victim- exaggerate they are terroists they are used to violence

Denial of injury- we are real victims no them

Denail of repsonsiblity

Condeming the condemers

Appeal to higher loyalty