State Crime and Human Rights

Question 1

Green and Ward - state crime definition

Answer 1

State crimes are crimes committed by governments. They were defined by Penny Green and Tony Ward (2005) as “illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or with, the complicity of state agencies”.

Of course, states generally create the laws of their countries and while governments may break their own laws, it is more likely the case that they are breaking international law; or their actions should be seen in terms of transgressive criminology (causing harm rather than breaking the law). A wide range of state crimes may be considered.

Question 2

McLaughlin - 4 types of state crime

Answer 2

Eugene McLaughlin (2001) divided these into four types of state crime:

> Crimes by the security and police forces
Economic crimes
Social and cultural crimes (like institutional racism)
Political crimes (like corruption)

Question 3

Schwendinger - state crimes violating human rights

Answer 3

Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1970) say that we should define crime as that which violate basic human rights rather than law breaking. Therefore states which don’t regard human rights are criminals. But their view is a little different, they say that any state that practices imperialism, racism, sexism, or inflicting economic exploitation on their citizens is committing crimes.

Question 4

Cohen - state crime and the culture of denial

Answer 4

Stanley Cohen argues that states conceal and legitimate their human rights crimes. He says this because human rights and state crime are increasingly central to both political debate and criminology because of the impact of the human rights movements like Amnesty international an increased focus on victims.

Cohen argues that depending on the type of state system governments will utilise different methods to legitimise and conceal their human rights crimes. Dictatorships (such as Iraq under Saddam Hussain) will simply deny that the abuses are happening, however democratic states have to use far more complex ways to justify the abuses, and in doing so tend to follow a three step process which Cohen referred to as the “Spiral of Denial“.

Question 5

Kelman and Hamilton - crimes of obedience

Answer 5

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) studied ‘crimes of obedience’ and found 3 features that produce these crimes:

Authorisation; when acts are approved by a form of authority – Milgram’s study of obedience.

Routinisation; if its a routine people can commit it in a detached manor.

Dehumanisation; when the enemy is portrayed as sub-human rather then human and described in as animals, monsters etc.