globalisation, green crime, human rights and state crime Flashcards
Globalisation refers to
The increasing connectedness of sources of societies, one locality is shaped by different events
Causes of globalisation
New into, mass media cheap air travel, movement of business
Held
Globalisation of crime spread, of transnational organised
Castell
Global criminal economy worth over 1 trillion per year e.g
- Arms trafficking to illegal groups such as terroist
- Smuggling of illegal immigrants (Chinese triads 2.5 million)
- Trafficking wi,en and children/body parts in China
- Green crimes such as dumping toxic waste
- Drug trade worth 490 billion
Supply and demand
Demand from the rich west, couldn’t function without the supply side e.g. drugs. Linked to globalisation e.g. third world comes from poverty in Columbia cocaine outsells all other experts combined
Global risk consciousness
Risk is now seen as gimbal and not tied to one place e.g. fear of asylum seekers. Our knowledge of risk comes from the media “moral panic”
E.g. asylum seekers seen as scrounges led to a risk in hate crimes
Results in intense social control e.g. tougher border control air line fines
Increased international cooperation
Taylor: capitalism
Globalisation has led fo changes in the pattern of crime
Allowed corporations to switch manufacturing to low wage countries producing poverty. This widens inequalities and encourages people to turn to crime e.g. LA de-industrialisation has led to growth of drugs gangs
Also creates opportunities for elite groups e.g. moving of funds and avoiding tax. Led to new patterns of unemployment “flexible workers”, working less than mini mum wag
A03 Taylor capitalism
Does not explain how the changes make people behave in criminal ways e.g. not all poor people commit crimes
Crimes of globalisation
Rothe and friedrichs: world bank 188 countries, yet 5 hold over 1/3 of rioting rights
These bodies impose pro-capitalist programme on poor countries for loans they provide e.g. at spending on education creates conditions for crime
Patterns of criminal organisation
Hobbs and Dunnigham:the way crime is organised is linked to economic changes brought by globalisation
Individuals with contacts a “hub” with other individuals looking for opportunities
This contacts with large scale hierarchal “mafia” crime
Glocal organisation
Crime is still rooted in local context
Still locally based but has global connections
H&D argue Graf crime has shifted from rigid hierarchy structures to flexible and entrepreneurial criminal
Mc mafia (Glenny)
Glenny: organisations that emerged in Russia after the fall of communism
Linked to the break up of the Soviet Union and deregulation of global markets
Gov no longer regulated prices of everything
Those with money could buy diamonds, oils etc at low costs and sell them on for huge profit
These people would turn to the mafia to help them protect their wealth
Able to move their money out of the country and make connections globally
What is the definition of globalisation
Crime against the environment.
Why is it a global problem. Give an example
Is it a global problem as much green crime can be linked to globalisation and increasing inter connectedness of societies
global risk society
most threats to humans are now human made compared to drought and famine.
Beck
increase in productivity has new “manufactured” risks e.g. global warming-effects people globally “global risk society”
example of how the global nature of human-made risk can produce crime and disorder
Russia-triggered heatwave and fires- destroyed grain belt-rose the prices in Mozambique and triggered looting .
traditional criminology
not concerned as no law has been broken. follow international laws e.g. the definition of environmental crime as an omission
advantages to traditional criminology
clear defined subject matter
disadvantages of traditional criminology
accept definitions made by powerful groups
green criminology
notion of harm” rather than law. “transgressive criminology” overstep boundaries of traditional criminology to include new issues. this study is also known as zeminology (study of harm). different countries have different laws, cannot provide consistent standard of harm. agree with Marxists that powerful groups can decline in exploitive ways.
two views of harm
anthropocentric-humans have the right to dominate nature and put economic growth first
Ecocentric- humans and environmental are independent, liable to exploitation (green crime)
primary Green crimes
- crime of air pollution: burning of fossil fuels (6b tones of carbon) potential criminals are Gov businesses and consumers.
- species decline: 50 species a day are becoming extinct due to deforestation and animal trafficking
secondary Green crimes
state violence: states condemn terrorism that resort but resort to similar methods e.g. France blew up a ship that was attempting to stop green crime (testing nuclear weapons in the pacific).
hazardous waste. disposal of toxic waste highly profitable. legal disposable. its expensive so profit from illegal dumping in the sea “radioactive rubbish dump” some dump in third world countries $2500 atone $3 a tone illustrates the problems
evaluation of green criminology
recognises the growing importance of global issues and need to address harms
by focusing on harms, hard to define the boundries, matter of values
the scale of state crime
state’s enormous power gives it the potential to inflict harm on a huge scale. 262 million murdered by government during 20th century
the state is the source of law
states role to define what is criminal but means they can conceal crimes. makes it difficult for united nations to intervene as the state acts as supreme authority
case studies for state crime
- political crimes e.g. corruption
- crimes by security e.g. genocide
- economic crimes e.g. violation of health and safety
- cultural crimes e.g. racism
genocide in Rwanda
united nations defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy in whole, national, ethical, racial or religious group” Rwanda became a religious colony in 1922. Rwanda gained independence in 1962
chambliss
“acts define by laws as criminals and committed by state officials in pursuit of their jobs” using a state own law to define state crime is inadequate. ignores that states have the power to make laws for own purpose e.g. Nazi sterilisation of the disabled
social harms and zemiology
recognises that harm done by states is not against the law.
michalowski
also include “legally permissible acts were consequences are similar to illegal ones”
hillyard
replace the study of crimes with “zemiology of harms, regardless of the law (single standards)
what do critics argue about the harms definition
critics are too vague- who decides what counts as a harm?
labelling
state crime is socially constructed, varies overtime and culture. prevents sociologists imposing their own definition when they may not be how the audience defines it
criticisms to the labelling theory defining crime
however, even more vague than "harms" definition. unclear what to do if different audiences reach different verdicts ignores that audience may be manipulated by ruling class ideology e.g. wars are legitimates.
international law
some sociologists base definitions on international law
advantage of international law
doesn’t depend on audience or sociological defintions
disadvantage of international law
however, like the state, definitions are social construct using power, may be intentionally designed to deal with state crime e.g. japan gave foreign aid to Jamaican islands to bribe them to vote against whale hunting
human rights include
natural rights- people have simply by existing
civil rights- e.g vote education
Herman
define state crimes as violation of basic human rights
advantage of human rights definition
rights are now global norms and all states care about this image
disadvantage of human rights definition
disagreements about what counts as human rights
how does authoritarian personality define state crime
willingness to obey orders through discipline socialisation (ww2). little psychologists difference between psychopaths and people carry out genocides
how does modernity explain state crime
some argue a breakdown of civilisation results in reversion to barbarism
Bauman
disagrees and argues the following made the holocaust happen.
what key features of modern society made the holocaust possible (Bauman)
- the division of labour: everyone had one task
- Bureaucratisation: made it a routine job
- instrumental rationality: rational methods to achieve a goal science and technology e.g. gas
AO3 for division of labour
not all genocides occur through a division of labour
how does crimes of obedience explain state crime
state crimes are crimes of conformity. people willing to obey authority even when it harms others.
Green and ward
tortures and re-socialised and trained to see the person as an “enemy”
study of the My Lai massacre, three features that produce crime and obedience
- authoritarian- acts of approval by those by those in authority
- Routinisation- turn act into a routine
- dehumanisation- enemy describes as sub-human.
how does cultural of denial
democratic states have a legitimates their actions in more complex ways.
spiral of state denial
- it didn’t happen
- “it it did happen it was someone else”
- “even if it did happen it was justified”
Cohen shows how the state use the same techniques to justify human rights violations
- neutralisation- denial of victim
- denial of injury
- denial of responsibility
- condemning the condemners
- appeal to higher royalty
