state crime

• definition by Green and Ward:

  
  

  state crime is any illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or with, the complicity of state agencies
• types of state crime:

  • political crimes
  • crimes by security, military or police
  • economic crimes
  • social and cultural crimes
• political crime example 1:

  these can include CORRUPTION whereby the government carries out illegal or immoral activities in order to ensure its sustained power and social position
• political crime example 2:

  CENSORSHIP, where an individual’s freedom of speech is restricted or where they are unable to freely access information (as is the case in China)
• crimes by security, military or police:

  often involve the mistreatment of members of society.

  examples of this could include genocides such as in Rwanda or the torture and disappearance of political dissidents such as in Chile
• economic crimes

  • official violations of health and safety laws
  • economic policies which cause harm to the population
• social and cultural crimes

  • institutional racism - police force targeting certain groups in society, ethnocentric curriculum ignore certain group history
  • destruction of native cultures and heritage - USA destruction of native indian sites and lands
• seriousness of state crime:

  
  

  • scale
  • state as a source of law
  • culture of denial
  • neutralisation theory
• scale:

  state crime is extremely widespread and is committed on a mass scale- because the state is hugely powerful it is able to cause harm to significant numbers of people

  • example - in Cambodia Khmer Rouge government killed up to 1/5 of the whole population
• Sociologists would point to the way in which it is inevitable that crimes such as these will occur wherever there is great political power
• state as a source of law:

  States have the power to conceal their crimes and make them harder to detect, and change the law to benefit their deviance.

  The concept of National Sovereignty means that it is difficult for international bodies to intervene
• The state has a monopoly over violence which also allows it the potential to cause great physical harm and to oppress populations by threatening harm
• media and state crime:

  mass media has given some attention to such crimes, but tend to focus on third‐world countries such as Cambodia;

  however, there are numerous examples of Western countries which have also used violence and torture (such as Americans in Iraq).

  This is because the mass media is dominated by Western countries in terms of its ownership and therefore they are more able to cover up their illegitimate activities to allow them to continue.
• the state is its own source of law which means it is able to decide what is defined as criminal.
• The state also takes control over the criminal justice system and the ways in which it prosecutes offenders
• However, state crime undermines the justice system as it is able to define its own actions as not being criminal. This was the case in Nazi Germany, as the state allowed the state to disable people against their will.
• integrated theory- Green and Ward


  This theory suggests state crime arises from similar circumstances to those of other crimes, like street crime.

  Integrating three factors and how these factors interact generate state crimes:

  • Motivation
  • Opportunity
  • Lack of controls
• Modernity- Bauman

  
  

  suggests it is certain features of modern society that made the state crimes possible:

  1. A division of labour: Each person is responsible for one task so no one is full responsible.
  2. Bureaucratisation: Normalisation of the act by making it repetitive and routine. Dehumanisation of victim.
  3. Instrumental rationality : Rational and efficient methods to achieve a goal regardless of the goal itself.
  4. Science and technology: Scientific and technological knowledge to justify the means and the motive
• Social Conditions:

  unlike citizen crime, state crimes tend to be crimes of obedience rather than deviance.


  three features that produce crimes of obedience:

  1. Authorisation: Acts are approved of by those in power. Normal moral principals are replaced by duty to obey.
  2. Routinisation: Turn the act into a routine behaviour so it can be performed in a detached manner.
  3. Dehumanisation: The victims are portrayed as sub human so normal morality doesn’t apply.
• Schwendinger argues we should define crime in terms on the violation of basic human rights, rather than breaking legal rules.

  So, if a state denies individuals their human rights, then that must be regarded as criminal.

  From a human rights perspective, the state can be seen as a perpetrator of crime and not simply the authority the defines and punishes crime.

  If we accept a legal definition of crime, we risk becoming subservient to the state that makes the law.
• Cohen is interested in the ways states hide and legitimate their human rights crimes.

  He identified a spiral of denial that states use when accused of human rights abuses.
• neutralisation theory - cohen

  Denial of victim (‘they were terrorists’)

  Denial of injury (‘they started it, we are the victims, not them’)

  Denial of responsibility (‘I was only doing my duty’)

  Condemning the condemners (‘it’s worse elsewhere’ ‘the world is picking on us’)

  Appeal to higher loyalty (the appeal to the higher cause e.g. revolution, state security).