State Crimes

• State Crime- Defined

  Green and Ward: illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or with the complicity of state agencies. Including all forms of crime committed by or on behalf states and governments to further their policies. It doesn't include acts which merely benefit individuals who work for the state.
• Most Serious form of Crime: The Scale

  The power of the state gives it the potential to inflict harm on a large-scale. Green and Ward cite a figure of 262 million people murdered by governments during 20th Century. Michalowski and Kramer: great power and great crimes are unseparable as elites can bring death, disease and loss to thousands with a single decision.
• Most Serious form of Crime: The Source of the Law

  The states role to define what is criminal, uphold the law and prosecute criminals means that their power can conceal their crimes and avoid punishment. They can even avoid defining their actions as criminal. State crime then undermines the CJS and public faith in it. As states are the supreme authority within their boarders, it makes it difficult for external authorities, like United Nations, to intervene.
• Four Categories of State Crime

  McLaughlin

  Political Crimes- e.g. corruption and censorship

  Crimes by Security and Police Forces- e.g. genocide, torture, and disappearances of dissidents

  Economic Crimes- e.g. violations of health and safety laws

  Social and Cultural Crimes- e.g. institutional racism
• Case Studies: Genocide in Rwanda (1)

  Genocide- acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Rwanda became a Belgian colony in 1922 and Belgians used the minority Tutsi to mediate their rule over Hutu majority. Though these groups weren't separate ethnic groups, they were more like social classes. But Belgians 'ethnicised' the two groups- giving them racial identity cards and educating groups separately.
• Case Studies: Genocide in Rwanda (2)

  Rwanda regained independence in 1962 and elections brought Hutu majority to power. By 1990s, an economic and political crisis led to a civil war with Hutu in the government trying to cling onto power by fuelling race hate propaganda against Tutsis. Shooting of Hutu presidents plane triggered the genocide. Within 100 days, 800,000 Tutsis were killed, justified by giving them dehumanising labels. Initially killing was done by Hutu military, but eventually 1/3 of Hutu population joined to avoid being killed themselves.
• Case Studies: State-Corporate Crime

  The Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster: example of state initiated crime, when states initiate, direct or approve corporate crime. Challenger was a risky and cost-cutting decision made by state agency NASA and the corporation Morton Thiokol which led to an explosion that killed 7 astronauts 73 seconds after it set off (Researcher- Kramer).
• Case Studies: State-Corporate Crime

  The Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Disaster: example of state facilitated corporate crime where states fail to regulate and control corporate behaviour, making crime easier. The rig, owned by BP, exploded and sank which killed 11 workers and caused the largest accidental oil spill with major health, environmental and economic impacts. An official enquiry found it had resulted from BP's cost-cutting decisions which government regulators had failed to notice.
• Case Studies: War Crimes (1)

  Illegal Wars: under international law, in all cases other than self-defence, war can only be declared by the UN Security Council. On this basis, many US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal. Kramer and Michalowski argue that to justify their invasion of Iraq in 2003 as self-defence, the UK and US knowingly made the false claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
• Case Studies: War Crimes (2)

  Crimes Committed During War or its Aftermath: Kramer and Michalowski identify crimes committed during the Iraq war, including the torture of prisoners. A US military inquiry into Abu Ghraib prison found numerous instances of 'sadistic' criminal abuses of prisoners. Yet only 9 soldiers were convicted, highest ranking being a staff sergeant. No commanding officers were prosecuted; and personnel from private companies were implicated, but none prosecuted.
• Defining State Crime: Domestic Law

  Chambliss: acts defined by law as criminal and committed by state officials in pursuit of their jobs as state representatives.
• Defining State Crime: Domestic Law (AO3)

  However, using the state's own domestic law to define state crime is inadequate as it ignores the fact that the state has the ability to make laws that avoid criminialisation of their own actions. E.g. the German Nazi state passed a law which permitted them to compulsorily sterilise the disabled. This definition also leads to inconsistencies as acts differ in terms of legality depending on which area they are in.
• Defining State Crime: Social Harms & Zemiology

  Recognises that most harm done by the state isn't against the law. Michalowski defines state crime as not just illegal acts, but 'legally permissible acts whose consequences are similar to those of illegal acts. Hillyard et al argues we should take a wider view, opting for zemiology- the study of harms, these would include state-facilitated poverty.
• Defining State Crime: Social Harms & Zemiology (AO3)

  Definition prevents states from ruling themselves 'out of court' by making laws which allow them to misbehave. It creates a single standard that can be applied to different states. Though the definition is very vauge: what level of crime has to occur before an act is seen as a crime, the field of study may be too wide; and who decides what counts as harm, this just replaces the states personal definition with the sociologists equally personal definition.
• Defining State Crime: Labelling and Societal Reaction

  Labelling theory argues that whether something is defined as a crime is dependent upon the reaction of the social audience. They may witness the act directly or indirectly, like through media reports. This definition recognises that state crime is socially constructed, and definitions can vary in different cultures. This then prevents sociologists from imposing their own definition of state crime when it may not be how participants define the situation.
• Defining State Crime: Labelling and Societal Reaction (AO3)

  It is vauge, meaning its unclear who is meant to be the relevant audience that decides whether a state crime has been committed, or what to do if different audiences reach different verdicts on the act. Marxists would argue that it ignores the fact that the audience's definitions might be manipulated by ruling-class ideology; e.g. the media persuading the public to see the war as legitimate.
• Defining State Crime: International Law

  Base their definition of state crime on international laws- laws created through treaties and agreements between states such as the Geneva and Hauge Conventions on war crimes. Rothe and Mullins: define state crime as any action by or on behalf of the state which violates international state law and/or a state's own domestic law.
• Defining State Crime: International Law (AO3)

  It doesn't depend on the sociologist's own personal definitions of harm or who the relevant social audience is- instead, it uses globally agreed definitions of state crime. Though, like the laws made by individual states, these laws are social constructions involving the use of power. Strand and Tuman found that Japan sought to overturn an international ban on whaling by bribing smaller countries by providing them foreign aid.
• Defining State Crime: Human Rights

  Natural Rights- people have simply by the virtue of existing (like the right to life, liberty and free speech). Civil Rights- right to vote, privacy, fair trial, or education. Schwendinger: state crime is a violation of people's basic human rights by the state or its agents. States which practice imperialism, racism, sexism or economic exploitation are committing crimes as they are denying people their basic rights.
• Defining State Crime: Human Rights (AO3)

  Risse et al: argues this definition is effective because virtually all states care about their human rights image as these rights are now global social norms. Making them susceptible to shaming, and this can provide motivation to make states respect their citizens again.
• Defining State Crime: Human Rights (AO3)

  This definition of crime is inevitably political- if we accept the legal definition, we become subservient to the state's interests. Schwendinger argues the role of the sociologist should be to defend human rights, even if they go against state's laws. This is an example of transgressive criminology- goes against traditional boundaries of what is defined by criminal law.
• Defining State Crime: Human Rights (AO3)

  However, Cohen argues that although gross violations of human rights such as torture are clearly crimes, other acts like economic exploitation aren't self-evidently criminal, even if we find them morally unacceptable.
• Defining State Crime: Human Rights (AO3)

  There are disagreements about what counts as a human right, most include life and liberty, but some don't include freedom from hunger. Though Green and Ward argue that liberty isn't much use if people are too malnourished to exercise it. Therefore if the state does knowingly permit the export of food from a famine area then it is a denial of human rights, and seen as a state crime (e.g. British government during Irish famine in 1840s).
• Explaining State Crime: The Authoritarian Personality

  Adorno et al: includes a willingness to obey the orders of superiors without question. Arguing that during WW2, many Germans had an authoritarian personality due to the disciplinarian socialisation patterns which were common at that time.
• Explaining State Crime: Crimes of Obedience

  State crimes are crimes of authority, as they require obedience from a higher authority. Sociologists argue that people become willing to obey authority, even when it involves harming others, due to the way that they are socialised. Green and Ward argue that to overcome norms against using cruelty, individuals need to become re-socialised, trained and exposed to propaganda.
• Crimes of Obedience: My Lai Massacre

  Kelman and Hamilton identify three features that produce crimes of obedience: Authorisation- normal moral principles are replaced with the duty to obey. Routinisation- strong notion to turn the action of a crime into a routine, so it can be done with detachment; and Dehumanisation- enemy is portrayed as sub-human making normal principles of morality non-applicable.
• Explaining State Crime: Modernity- Features of Modern Society which enabled the Holocaust, Bauman 


  A division of labour- meaning no one felt personally responsible; bureaucratisation- normalised killing by making it a repetitive, rule-governed, routine 'job', making victims dehumanised as mere 'units'; Instrumental Rationality- rational, efficient methods are used to achieve a goal (in business- profit, in holocaust-murder); and Science & Technology- industrially producing the gas used to kill. It was the result of modern rational-bureaucratic civilisation, not the breakdown of civilisation.
• Explaining State Crime: Modernity- Holocaust (AO3)

  Not all genocides occur in highly organised divisions of labour to enable individuals to distance themselves (e.g. Rwandan genocide was carried out by large gang groups). Ideological factors are important; Nazi ideology stressed a monolithic German identity, excluding other minorities who were seen as inferior. Though whilst the modern, rational division helped to supply the means, the racist ideology supplied the motivation.
• Explaining State Crime: The Culture of Denial

  Cohen: states have to make greater effort to conceal or justify human rights crimes, or relabel their actions due to the growing importance of the human rights movements. Dictatorships are able to flatly deny any human rights abuses, but democratic states have to legitimise their actions in complex ways- making the 'spiral of state denial' (3 Stages).
• Explaining State Crime: The Spiral of State Denial S1

  Stage 1 'It didn't happen'- the state will claim there was no massacre. But human rights organisations, victims and the media will show it did happen ('showing graves' or 'having photos').
• Explaining State Crime: The Spiral of State Denial S2

  Stage 2 'If it did happen, "it" is something else'- the state will claim that it was self-defence, not murder.
• Explaining State Crime: The Spiral of State Denial S3

  Stage 3 'Even if it is what you say it is, it's justified'- they will claim it was done in the effort to fight the 'war on terror'.
• Explaining State Crime: The Culture of Denial

  Techniques of Neutralisation- Skyes and Matza; identify 5 techniques which delinquents use to justify their deviant behaviour. Denial of Victim- arguing that they have exaggerated / they are terrorists; Denial of Injury- we are the real victims, not them; Denial of Responsibility- I was only obeying orders (justification from policemen, guards, etc); Condemning the Condemners; Appear to higher loyalty- self-righteous justifications that claim they are serving a higher cause.
• Explaining State Crime: The Culture of Denial

  Techniques of Neutralisation: these techniques don't deny the event has occurred, but they seek to impose a different construction of the event. E.g. Cohen argues that 'war on terror' was used by the US to justify its coercive interrogation practices. Including: hooding, shaking, sleep deprivation, stress positions, and water boarding (simulated drowning). US claimed these weren't torture, only merely inducing stress, Cohen sees this as a neutralisation technique aimed to normalise torture.