Globalisation and crime in cotemporary society Human rights and state crime

Defintion of state crime & examples Green and Ward (2004) - Illegal activties carried out by the agents of the state such as armed services, the secret services,civil servants,the police and prision services on behalf of the government and political leaders in the name of state interests. Genocide,ethnic cleansing, use of torture,assasination of political opponents,supporting terrorists activities against elected governments and invading less powerful states.

Human Rights Human rights are those that suggest that everyone, because of their common humanity, is entitled to fair and just treatment wherever they are in the world. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 established a legal framework for defining and enforcing universal human rights, which Green and Ward suggest have become global social norms

Problems of defining state and human crimes The state is the source of law creation and defines what a crime is. It therefore has the power to define activities as not criminal. For example the persecution of Jews in 1930’s and 1940’s in Nazi Germany was considered legal. Even when a state commits an act that is deemed illegal under international laws (such as the violations of human rights under the UN declaration of human right or against the Geneva Convention) states have the power to disguise, decriminalise and justify these offences by defining them as something other than crimes.

Problems of defining state crimes Governments have the power to cover up such activities and actually control the flow of information and especially the media by issuing legal instructions to prevent journalists for speaking about state crimes in the ‘public interest’.

Continued …………………… The powerful can define what counts as crime on society. What is defined as crime or violence is an ideological construct. E.g gov can define killing done by a member of the public as a problem but this would not apply if it is done by a soldier. This is ideological relativity –gov can decide who is defined as terrorists or freedom fighter and what counts as war crimes. E.g Holocaust =war crime but dropping atom bomb in Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the West is seen as necessary

Transgressive Criminology Due to the difficulties of defining state crimes – sociologists have adapted a more transgressive approach. This means going outside the usual boundaries of defining state crimes as law breaking. Instead Schwendinger and Schwendinger (1975) suggest that state crimes should be considered as violations of human rights, committed on, behalf of, or with complicity of state agencies.

Eugene McLaughlin McLaughlin would also include Censorship of the media and institutional racism as state crimes (using the idea of transgressive crime) He suggest is some groups are denied same opportunities as the majority of the population on the basis of racism,sexism and homphobia, or if they are economically exploited results in unequal conditions that are a results of crimes against human rights.

George Bush & Tony Blair ‘technically war criminals’ USA and UK invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power Some argue this broken international laws as they have not secured the agreement of the international community via United Nations Security

Evaluation of the Schwendingers Cohen is critical of Schwendinger that state crime should include violating human rights Genocide and torture are clearly crimes but economic exploitation is not clearly criminal but is morally unacceptable. There is not enough agreement over what makes up human rights. For example most people would accept that freedom should be a human right but not everyone would agree that freedom from poverty is a right

Cohen further criticizes Schwendinger Immorality is being confused with criminality He is taking a high moral value position attempting to impose this view in the world of criminology Links to whether sociology should be objective or subjective Schwendinger is clearly in the other camp

Examples of State/Human Crimes Torture and illegal treatment of citizens - an example Pol Pot led Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in when an estimated 1.5 million people died through forced labour, malnutrition, poor medical care, executions of those regarded as ‘enemies’ State sponsored terrorism – the US has a long history of supporting illegal rebel groups in Central and South America War crimes – for example Israel has repeatedly condemned for the deliberate targeting of civilians in populations in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Genocide – Hitler’s Nazi regime murdered 6 million Jews between 1933 and In Sudan’s Darfur region an estimated 300,000 have died between 2003 and 2009 – please see videoplease see video

Explaining state crimes Two main explanations: Green and Ward (2012) identify one main explanation for state crime: 1.Integrated theory State crimes arise from similar circumstances to those of other crimes – e.g. street crimes – with three elements: Motivations of offenders Opportunities to commit crimes Failures of control So state crimes arise out of the same reasons as any crime in society

2. Kelman and Hamilton –’crimes of obedience’ offer another explanation for state crimes Emphasizes not rule breaking but obedience in state crimes. This is created in three ways: 1.Authorization – making it clear that individuals are acting with official policy. 2.Dehumanization – Exclusion of minorities who are regarded as sub-human species to whom normal rules of behaviour do not apply. This makes genocide and torture acceptable to normal people. (Happened in Germany with the Jewish population, in Rwanda, in Darfur etc. etc.) and is much the same as the treatment of terrorists today. 3. Routinization – this involves organizing the actions in such a way that it becomes part of a regular routine. Violent actions can be carried out in a detached way that denies the perpetrators the need of opportunity to raise moral questions about the acts they are committing. They often leave after their violent act and go back to normal everyday life where ordinary social norms prevail.

Techniques of neutralisation Difficult to find out extent of state crime because of governments denial of their actions or justifying their actions to cover up their illegal acts. E.g. national interest Cohen (2001) applies Matza’s techniques of neutralisation to explain state crime: Those who carry out acts on behalf of government do not see themselves as criminal they use techniques of neutralization to deny or justify crimes. 1.deny their victims by labelling them as terrorists or extremists 2. They deny injury or damage by saying the other side started it 3. deny responsibility by saying they were simply following orders or doing their duty

Examiners comments theory and methods Methods - we have no idea to the extent of state crime – governments and states will control the flow of information! The is a new area and still evolving. It is important to be evaluative you may have noctied how the study of state crime is reliant on secondary sources be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of these.

Problems of researching continued Tombs and Whyte (2003) researchers can face strong official resistance and states can seriously hinder sociologists doing research- by threats, refusing to provide funding, denying access to official documents. In some countries researchers face imprisonment, torture and death as enemies of the state.