Crimes of the State & Human Rights Flashcards
Green & Ward (2004): Definition of State Crimes
‘Deviant or illegal activities perpetrated by or with the complicity of state agencies to further state policies’
Ross (2000): Categories that define/discuss State Crimes
- Omission - gov/agencies failing to prevent crime
- Commission - gov/agencies acting criminally
- Direct - gov acting criminally
- Indirect - state agencies acting criminally
- Within-state - crimes against own citizens
- Between-states - crimes against other states’ citizens
Human Rights
- Set of guidelines for treating people - outlined by UN in 1948 in ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’
- Based on idea that all humans are the same & deserve the same rights
- Set up by committee led by Eleanor Roosevelt - aimed to establish ‘International Bill of Rights’ - similar to US model
Basis of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Liberal principles - all should be made free from conditions, institutions, laws, and governments that curtail their individual freedom
Supporters of Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Western liberals and others around the world
- Basis in belief in autonomy, which focuses on individuals’ unique insight into their needs/ wants
- State should exists to remove barriers to personal sovereignty in individuals’ interests
Opposition to Declaration of Human Rights
- Conservatives & non-Western groups
- Believe traditional, religious, family values are undermined by focus on individuals’ needs over national interests
- Believe state should exist to curtai lindividual interests in the interest of the majority
Examples of Human Rights
- All born free & equal in dignity and rights
- None shall be held in slavery or servitude
- All are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection by the law
Integrated theory
- State crime arises from similar circumstances to other crimes
- Explaining it involves integration of 3 elements - motivation, opportunity, failures of control (intentional or not)
- These interact to break rules & generate state crimes
Kelman & Hamilton (1989): Crimes of Obedience Model
- Emphasises conformity to rules, not rule-breaking
- Violent states encourage obedience by those who actually carry out state-backed systematic human rights abuses
- This is despite them personally regarding them as immoral act
Kelman & Hamilton (1989): Authorisation
Making it clear to individuals that they’re acting in accordance with official policy, and with explicit state authority/support
Kelman & Hamilston (1989): Dehumanization
- State promotion of monolithic cultural identity based on marginalisation/exclusion of minorities - portrayed as subhumans to which normal rules of behaviour don’t apply
- Enables state crimes against them to become acceptable to ordinary people
Kelman & Hamliton (1989): Routinisation
Organising actions in such a way that they become part of regular routine and can be done in a detached way that denies perpetrators the need/opportunity to raise moral questions about the acts
Swann (2001): Enclaves of Barbarism
- Places/Situations where state violence is encouraged/rewarded
- Once perpetrators leave, they return to ordinary life
Background of Cohen (2001): Techniques of Neutralisation
- Applies Sykes & Matza’s (1957) concept of Techniques of Neutralisation to explain how states can deny serious breaches of human rights
Cohen (2001): Techniques of Neutralisation for State Crimes
- Re-label crimes as something else or excusing them as regrettable but justifiable (eg. torture of terrorists)
- States provide necessary excuses/justifications for themselves, those who carry out acts, and to other countries who may seek to condemn these acts
