Globalisation and crime Flashcards
Ian Taylor (1997)
Globalisation, Capitalism and Crime
The growth of international trading partnerships across the world has added a degree of competition among businesses for maximising profit.
> As companies in developed societies such as the UK recognise production costs and wage costs are lower in less developed parts of the world, re-location of businesses is common - this allows companies to exploit and oppress staff in developing countries - at the home absence of a previously large employer opens up new criminal opportunities for often poorly-paid.
> Globalisation also enabled opportunities to increase within businesses.
EVALUATION -
>Taylor is accused of lacking precise evidence to support his views.
>It isn’t clear why some people turn to crime and some don’t.
Misha Glenny (2008)
McMafia
The process of globalisation has opened up ‘new criminal opportunities which are difficult to police.
> When communism fell in Russia in the late 1980s, the state sold off many of its many previously-owned assets for relatively low prices - this allowed the former communist officials to easily purchase and gain control of precious resources, creating an instant powerful capitalist class (oligarchs)
> To protect their new wealth, oligarchs employed new mafia-style organisations to act as a ‘bodyguard’ for their wealth.
> The mafia helped to ensure money and wealth could be transported across the world and stored in safe havens - which are hard to track down.
> This inspired Glenny to use the term ‘McMafia’ due to the mafia-style organisation.
EVALUATION -
>This problem is not new and it’s simply exposed, money-laundering corruption existed before this, it just wasn’t exposed.
Jackie Sanches-Taylor (2010)
Sex Tourism
Globalisation is opening up new opportunities to commit sex offences.
> These offences are not new, but globalisation makes them easier to commit.
> The rise of cheap travel means travel abroad is a lot easier.
> Where Westerners visit countries like Thailand, poorly enforced laws mean men can take advantage of poorly educated materially deprived women for sexual services.
> It is hard to tackle crimes of this nature and governments are reluctant for fear of damaging income generated through tourism.
Beck (1992)
Global-risk consciousness
There has been an increase in fear, resentment and awareness of ‘risk’
> This is often presented through negative media reporting, including excessive coverage of immigration and people-trafficking issues.
‘moral panics’ have grown in recent years and in worst cases, people have taken the law into their own hands in order to ‘fight back’.
EXAMPLE - ‘hate crime’ has been officially recognised in English law since 2012. It refers to when people target a person based on religion, race and gender. For example, Islamaphobia. Police recorded 42000 ‘hate crimes’ in 2012-13.
Is the impact of globalisation on crime really that significant?
Hobbs and Dunningham (1998)
Evaluating Beck
Exaggerates the extent to which crime across the world is changing.
> crime at ‘local level’ still remains significant.
the term ‘glocal crime’ is used to fuse global elements of the crime with local impact.
the day-to-day calls police receive are local by local people, therefore criminologists are warned to not exaggerate.
Green crime
Green crime - crime and other harm against the natural environment.
> It is only recently being taken serious.
Air pollution, water pollution, acid rain, fly-tipping, crime against species etc.
Primary Green Crime - crime or harm that results from direct destruction, for example:
Illegal de-forestation.
Prosecution of endangered species, the ivory from tusks and horns from elephants and rhinos is often illegally trafficked.
EVALUATION
> How are ‘harm’ and ‘crime’ precisely defined with green issues? different countries look at green crime differently and have a different attitudes towards the environment, therefore it is hard to tackle green crime.
Rob White (2008)
Whether the green crime is really a crime depends on how you view it
> For many an ‘anthropocentric’ view of harm is followed. This sees human and economic development as important and if the environment is harmed as a consequence of this, then this is the consequence of progress and should prevent violations of the environment from being considered ‘criminal’.
This was used to explain the cause of the ‘Bhopal’ environmental and human disaster in India in the 1980s.
EXAMPLE - Bhopal, India, 1984 - an agricultural plant exploded releasing lethal toxic gases into the atmosphere - the explosion resulted in 3000 deaths and 20,000 serious disabilities.
Ulrich Beck (1992)
Green crime is another symptom of the ‘global risk society’.
> , Unlike natural disasters like flooding, today’s worries are our own making.
Media technology has made us aware of the risks we face - climate change for example is something we are all aware of now.
Its effects are global rather than local.
Some in society say that climate change is not occurring and is not as much of a risk as people present it to be.
Secondary Green Crime
Secondary Green Crime
A
A green crime occurs due to breaking the rules implemented to prevent environmental disasters.
> it is often government or government-related organizations that can be responsible for secondary green crime.
EXAMPLE - hazardous waste and organized crime: disposing of toxic waste in developing countries present particular problems for the poor, Marxists argue that rich, capitalist countries make deals with poorer countries to take their waste away.
EVALUATION - some argue that has been very little progress in developing the area of green crime in criminology and the English legal system to take it more seriously, is it really important?
State Crime
Eugene McLaughlin (2001)
There are 4 categories of state crime:
1) political crimes, such as corruption
2) Crimes by police, such as genocide and torture
3) Economic crimes, such as breaking health and safety laws
4) Social and cultural crimes, such as institutional racism
> points out that the biggest problem in analyzing state crime is how states/governments themselves define what does and does not constitute a ‘crime’ in their own countries.
Behaviour towards people which to the outside world appears as ‘barbaric’ therefore might be perfectly law-abiding in a state that has not illegalized such treatment of people.
crime is therefore a ‘social construction’ shaped and defined by states/governments.
EXAMPLE - Civil war in Syria - Bashar al-Assad was elected as President of Syria in 2000. He promised democratic reform, however, did not succeed, therefore fighting broke out resulting in many groups battling the government, these groups are referred to as ‘terrorists’ - this shows how power decides what is ‘terrorism’ and what isn’t.
Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1975)
Problems with defining ‘state crime’ - they demanded that sociologists must lead the way in holding states accountable for the way they can easily inflict pain and suffering on their own people, but escape justice.
> the researchers called for a replacement of the term ‘state crime’ with a focus instead on ‘human rights violations
the concept of ‘human rights’ has international significance and is easier to enshrine in international law.
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the following as basic rights:
*freedom to life
*freedom from torture
*freedom from slavery
*right to a fair trial
*freedom of speech
EXAMPLE - Jamal Khashoggi - In March 2018, Jamal Khashoggi a critic of the Saudi government was assassinated inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey, the international investigation found that Saudi authority was to blame, but they deny any claims.
EVALUATION - right to a fair trial is selectively enforced - many are left in detention for years before they get their ‘fair trial’ - for example Andrew Tate.
EVALUATION - countries interpret the ‘right to life’ differently - some countries outlaw abortion however in the UK it is legally acceptable.
Penny Green and Tony Ward (2012)
Sociological explanation of state crime
In order for nation-states to commit crimes on a mass scale against their own people, the support of the agencies who support them is essential.
> In addition, state control is far more likely to succeed if people’s freedoms have historically been restricted.
This, together with state propaganda, convinces people that they face a ‘common enemy’ - which in turn justifies the state’s tough treatment of them and results in very little resistance from the wider population.
EXAMPLE - new reporting has repeatedly highlighted the targeting and detaining of Imams and other Muslim religious figures since 2014 in China - ‘re-education camps are implemented by china government to ‘crackdown on religious extremism’ but it really is an attempt to stamp out religion.
Stan Cohen (2006)
Looks at ways states conceal and cover up issues of human rights - he argues that dictatorships are more likely to deny human rights abuses, whereas it is much harder for developed countries - instead when developed countries commit human rights crimes, they legitimate them - this is called the ‘spiral of denial’:
Stage 1: state denies human rights abuse has taken place
Stage 2: if denial is too difficult, the state tries to conceal the full extent of the issue e.g. “it’s not what it looks like”
Stage 3: if that is too difficult, the state justifies actions by pulling on heartstrings. e.g. “it’s justified, were protecting national security”
EXAMPLE - Russia - the poisoning of ex-spy, Sergei Skripal - Russian government denies all allegations made against them which applies to ‘stage 1’ of Cohen’s research.
