Theories Flashcards
overview
There are a growing number of theories seeking to explain state crime and human rights abuses. The conservative explanation believes states may justify apparently harsh actions as being in self-defence or for the protection of the nation’s citizens, and in that way their actions should not be seen as criminal as overall they will have the best interests of their citizens in mind.
However, radical criminologists, such as Marxists, criticise this acceptance of all state action as legitimate as it is only the power that the state has that allows them to lie to evade blame, they should not be blameless.
Realists support the Marxist view, but help to make us more aware that policies on the eradication of state crimes or human rights abuses are not easy to develop in the real world. A society may want its government to intervene, but intervention may actually make the problems worse. However, inaction may be immoral, leaving innocent civilians to further abuse which shows the complexity of the issue.
State crime as the violation of human rights
Critical criminologists such as Herman & Julia 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. In their view, states that practise imperialism, racism or sexism, or inflict economic exploitation on their citizens, are committing crimes.
From a human rights perspective, the state can be seen as a perpetrator of crime & not simply as the authority that defines & punishes crime. The Schwendinger’s argue that sociologists should defend human rights, if necessary against the state & its laws which is another example of transgressive criminology (like green criminology) as it oversteps the traditional boundaries of criminology that are defined by criminal law.
A03:Stanley Cohen criticises the Schwendinger’s view as not everything is self-evidently criminal. Gross violations of human rights such as genocide are clearly crimes, but other acts such as economic exploitation may ‘only’ be morally unacceptable. Other critics argue that there is only limited agreement on what counts as a human right, e.g. some would argue that freedom from poverty is not a universal human right – therefore using this transgressive view can become very subjective.
State crime & the spiral of denial
Cohen is particularly interested in the ways in which states conceal & legitimate their human rights crimes. He argues that while dictatorships generally simply deny committing human rights abuses, democratic states have to legitimate their actions in more complex ways & follow what Cohen calls a three-stage ‘spiral of state denial’:
Stage 1: “It didn’t happen”- the state may begin by completely
denying human rights crimes. However, this may be challenged
by non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty
International,
Stage 2: ‘If it did happen, “it” is something else’. Once they have been ‘found out’, the state will then try to redefine what has taken place as being something other than a human rights abuse. It says it is not what it looks like – it’s ‘collateral damage’
Stage 3: ‘Even if it is what you say it is, it’s justified’. If the stage 2 ‘excuse’ is proven to be wrong, the state may then try to justify what they have done in a different way - e.g. ‘to protect national security
Neutralisation theory
Cohen examines the ways in which states & their officials deny or justify their crimes. He draws on the work of Sykes & Matza (1961), who identify neutralisation techniques that delinquents use to justify their deviant behaviour. Cohen shows how states use the same techniques when they are attempting to justify human rights violations such as torture, massacres, etc. For example:
- Denial of victim: They exaggerate; they are terrorists; they are used to violence; look what they do to each other. (Often used when suspects are tortured by the state.)
- Denial of injury: They started it; we are the real victims, not them.
- Denial of responsibility: I was only obeying orders, doing my duty. (Often used by individual policemen, soldiers, death camp guards, etc.).
Cohen’s work usefully provides an extra dimension to understanding why human rights abuses continue to occur & remain common despite international agreements, an international criminal court & legal codes within nation states prohibiting these abuses.
