State Crime Flashcards
Define state crime
Green and Ward define state crime as illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by or with the complicity of state agencies
McLaughlin identifies four types of state crime:
1. Political crimes
AO2- corruption and censorship
2. Crimes by security and police forces
AO2- genocide, torture and disappearances of dissidents
My Lai Massacre
3. Economic crimes
AO2- official violations of health and safety laws
‘North Korea spends 1/3 of income on military’
4. Social and cultural crimes
AO2- institutional
‘The racial bias of the US death penalty’
The scale of state crime
• The power of the state enables it to commit extremely large-scale crimes and widespread victimisation, such as in the case of genocide and war crimes.
• Weber claimed that the government have a monopoly of the legitimate use of violence in the enforcement of its order.
• This monopoly on the legitimate use of violence gives it the potential to inflict massive harm, and its power means it can conceal these crimes or evade punishment.
AO3 scale of state crime
Linked to Marxist notion of crimes of the suites’ and the ability of those who have power to both commit the most serious crimes and get away with it
The state is the source of law
•It is the state’s role to define what is criminal, and to manage the criminal justice system and prosecute offenders.
• State crime undermines the system of justice.
• Its power also means that it can avoid defining its own actions as criminal.
•For example, in Nazi Germany, the state created laws permitting it to sterilise disabled people against their will.
•State control of the criminal justice system also means that it can persecute its enemies
AO3 of the state is the source of law
The principle of national sovereignty - that states are the supreme authority within their own borders -means that it is very difficult for external authorities like the UN to intervene.
Explaining state crime
-State crime and human rights
-State crime and the culture of denial
-Neutralisation theory (Matza)
-Crimes of obedience
-State crime is crime of modernity
State crime and human rights- the state commits crime that violates human rights
Critical criminologists such as Schwendinger and Schwendinger (1970) argue that we should define crime in terms of the violation of basic human rights, rather than the breaking of legal rules. This means that states that deny individuals’ human rights must be regarded as criminal. For example, states that practice imperialism, racism or sexism, or inflict economic exploitation on their citizens, are committing crimes.
• From a human rights perspective, the state can be a perpetrator of crime and not simply an authority that defines and punishes crime. In this view, the definition of crime is inevitable political.
• Eg- Nazis attacking Jews human rights
• If we accept a legal definition, we risk becoming subservient to the state that makes the law.
AO3 State crime and human rights
Cohen- criticises Schwendinger
He argues gross violations of human rights are clearly crines
Other acts such as economic exploitation are not self evidently criminal even if we find them morally unacceptable
Only limited agreement what constitutes a human right
State crime and the culture of denial- the state can deny their crimes
•Stan Cohen sees the issue of human rights and state crime as central to criminology, he is particularly interested in the ways in which states conceal and legitimate their human rights crimes.
•Dictatorships generally will simply deny committing human rights abuses
•Democratic states follow a three-stage spiral of denial.
1. First, the state claims the abuse ‘didn’t happen’.
2. When proof emerges that it did happen, they claim ‘it’s not what it looks like’ - not an abuse.
3. Third, when evidence emerges that it was an abuse, the state claims ‘it is justified’ e.g. necessary to protect national security.
AO3 the culture of denial
Lacks contemporary relevance.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for the government to hide, deny and reject state crime.
The growth in social media allows the public to spread messages around the globe.
Neutralisation theory (Matza)
Matza examines the ways in which states and their officials neutralise their crimes
- do not seek to deny that the event occurred but rather to ‘negotiate or impose a different construction of the event from what might appear to be the case’
1. Denial of the victim
They exaggerate, they are terrorists, they are used to violence
2. Denial of injury
They started it we are the real victims not them
3. Denial of responsibility
I was only obeying orders, doing my duty.
AO2- Nazi concentration camp guards
4. Condemning the condemners
The whole world is picking on us
5. Appeal to higher loyalties
Self righteous justification- the appeal to the higher cause - nation, revolution, religion
AO3 neutralisation theory
Global political organisations can punish governments officials who commit state crime
Eg Slobodan Milosevic
Crimes of obedience- people commit as they are willing to obey authority
State crimes are crimes of conformity since they require obedience to a higher authority
Research suggests willing to obey authority even if harms others
- Study of My Lai Massacre by Kelman and Hamilton identify three general features that produce crimes of obedience:
•Authorisation
people feel they have a duty to obey authority
•Routinisation
once the crime has been committed there is a strong pressure to turn the act into a routine that individuals can perform in a detached matter
•Dehumanisation
when the enemy is portrayed as sub human, normal principles of morality do not apply
AO3 crimes of obedience
Supporting-
Marxists argue crimes of obedience do take place as bourgeoisie manipulate the proletariat to carry out these crimes on their behalf.
Proletariat do this as they are brainwashed by the state and have a false class consciousness which suggests capitalism is the root of capitalism.
