state crime

State crimes are illegal or harmful acts carried out by governments or their agents that violate national or international laws. These crimes can include:

– War crimes

– Genocide

– Corruption and censorship

– Links with organized crime

– Funding of terrorism

– Assassination

– Imprisonment without trial

– Persecution of citizens through unjust laws (e.g., the Nuremberg Laws targeting Jews in Nazi Germany)

State crimes are often carried out on a large scale due to the power states hold. For example, during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia (1975–78), 2 million civilians (20% of the population) were killed.

Although dictatorship regimes are more often associated with state crimes, democratic governments (such as the UK and USA) have also committed state crimes, particularly related to torture, corruption, and illegal imprisonment.

Types of State Crime (Eugene McLaughlin, 2001)

McLaughlin categorized state crimes into four types:

1 Political crimes – e.g., election rigging.

2 Crimes by security forces – e.g., assassination of prisoners.

3 Economic crimes – e.g., illegal cooperation with transnational corporations (TNCs).

4 Social and cultural crimes – e.g., destruction of cultural sites and works.

Theories and Perspectives on State Crime

1. Human Rights Approach (Herman & Julia Schwendinger, 1970)

– They argued that state crimes should be defined as violations of human rights, not just breaches of the law.

– By this definition, governments that deny civil rights (e.g., voting rights for women) should be considered criminal.

– Evaluation: Stanley Cohen (1996, 2001) criticized this approach, arguing that morality and legality are separate, making it difficult to establish a clear list of human rights violations.

2. The Study of Zemiology (Hillyard, 2004)

– Zemiology suggests replacing the study of crime with the study of harm, regardless of legality.

– Michalowski (1985) supported this idea, arguing that state crime includes both illegal acts and legally permissible acts that cause harm.

– Evaluation: Critics argue that defining crime based on harm rather than law creates subjectivity and lacks clear legal accountability.

3. International Law Approach (Rothe & Mullins, 2008)

– State crime is defined as an action by or on behalf of a state that violates international or domestic law.

– Evaluation: This approach provides a legal framework but faces challenges in enforcement, as states may refuse to acknowledge international law.

4. Domestic Law Approach (Chambliss, 1989)

– State crime includes acts defined by national laws as criminal, committed by state officials in pursuit of their duties.

– Example: The UK MPs’ expenses scandal, where politicians misused public funds.

– Evaluation: This approach is limited as states can legalize harmful actions, making them technically non-criminal.

5. Hamilton’s Theory of Crimes of Obedience

– Hamilton argued that state crimes often occur because individuals feel compelled to obey authority, even when the actions are morally wrong.

– This theory suggests that state officials and security forces commit crimes because they follow orders rather than acting on personal beliefs.

– Evaluation: This aligns with Milgram’s (1963) obedience study, showing that people often comply with authority figures even when it causes harm to others.

Denial and Justification of State Crimes

According to Cohen (2001), states often attempt to cover up their crimes through two key methods:

1. The Spiral of Denial

A three-stage process where states:

1 Deny that the crime occurred (common in dictatorships).

2 Claim it was misinterpreted or exaggerated when presented with evidence.

3 Justify the actions when further proof emerges.

2. Neutralization Theory (Sykes & Matza, 1957; applied by Cohen)

States use techniques to justify their crimes rather than denying them entirely:

– Denial of Injury – Claiming they were retaliating against aggression.

– Denial of Victims – Stating that the victims deserved it or were not truly victims.

– Condemnation of the Condemners – Arguing that critics are biased and other states commit worse crimes.

– Appeal to Higher Loyalties – Justifying actions for national security, nationalism, or ideological reasons.

– Denial of Responsibility – Claiming they were following orders or acting under duress.

Challenges in Prosecuting State Crimes

– States define laws, making it difficult for international bodies (e.g., the UN) to intervene.

– Governments use their power to cover up or justify crimes.

– Lack of a universally accepted definition of human rights complicates prosecution.

– International law lacks enforcement mechanisms against powerful states.

Conclusion

State crimes remain a complex issue due to the power dynamics of governments and the difficulty in defining and enforcing laws against them. Different sociological perspectives provide insight into how state crimes are committed, justified, and denied, highlighting the challenges in holding states accountable.