State Crime

State Crimes:

• Strongly associated with Marxist and critical criminology.

• Similar to corporate crime as they are committed by those with power (anthropocentric).

• Marxists argue that we should investigate state crimes and their links to capitalism.

Green and Warde (2005, 2012):

‘Illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or with the complicity of, state agencies.’

• Includes all crimes committed by governments in order to further their policies.

• Does not include individual benefits.

State crimes are said to be the most serious form of crime for two reasons:

The Scale of State Crime:

• The enormous power of the state can inflict harm on a huge scale.

• Green and Warde cite 262 million people were murdered by governments in their 20th century.

• Michalowski and Kramer (2006) note great power and great crimes are inseparable.

State is the Source of Law:

• The state defines what is criminal, uphold the law and prosecute.

• They have the power to conceal crimes and evade punishment.

• All states are guilty of crime, but the principle of national sovereignty makes it difficult for external authorities to intervene eg. United Nations.

McLaughin (2012): Four Categories of State Crime

1. Political Crimes

Corruption and censorship.

2. Crimes by Security and Police Forces

Genocide, torture and disappearance of dissidents (a person who opposes official policy).

3. Economic Crimes

Official violations of health and safety laws.

4. Social and Cultural Crimes

Institutional racism.

Defining State Crime

Domestic Law:

Chambliss (1989):

• Using a state’s own domestic law to define state crime is inadequate as it ignores the fact that states can make laws to avoid criminalising their own actions.

• Laws can be used to carry out harmful acts.

• Eugenicists in Nazi Germany passed a law permitting the compulsory sterilisation of people with disabilities to stop them from reproducing ‘non-ideal’ offspring.

• Can also lead to inconsistencies, as it may be legal on one side of the border but not the other.

Social Harms and Zemiology:

Michalowski (1985) and Hillyard et al (2004):

• Recognises that most of the harm caused by states is not against the law.

• Michalowski defines state crime as including not just illegal acts, but also ‘legally permissible acts’ - the consequences are similar to those of illegal acts.

• Hillyard argues that we should focus more on state wrongdoing - replacing the study of crime with zemiology (the study of harms) whether the acts are illegal or not.

• This definition prevents states from ruling themselves out of court as they will not be able to make laws to make them look innocent or scapegoat others.

• Also creates a single standard for all so single most harmful states can be identified.

• However, critics argue the concept of ‘harm’ is too vague.

Labelling and Societal Reaction:

Kauzlarich (2007):

• Labelling theory argues that if an act is criminal it depends on who the social audience is to define it.

• Audiences are either direct or indirect e.g. seeing yourself or in a newspaper.

• Defines crime as socially constructed and so can change over time, culture or groups.

• However, this is even vaguer than the previous. Kauzlarich’s study of anti-Iraq War protestors found that although they saw the war as harmful, they were unwilling to label it criminal whereas zemiologially it is criminal.

• Also unclear on who the best audience is or what if there are multiple.

• Ignores the fact that audiences’ definitions may be manipulated by ruling class ideology e.g. the media and their moral panics.

International Law:

• Some sociologists base their definitions of state crime on international law - laws created between states eg. Geneva and Hague Conventions on war crimes.

• Rothe and Mullins (2008) define state crime as any action by or on behalf of a state that violates international law or domestic law.

• Advantage of this definition is that it does not depend on personal definitions of harm or audiences - instead uses globally agreed definitions.

• International law is also specifically designed to challenge state crimes.

• However, international law is still a social construction by the powerful.

• Strand and Tuman (2012) found that Japan has tried to overturn the international ban on whaling by bribing smaller states.

• Also, international law mostly looks at war crimes rather than corruption.

Human Rights:

Some sociologists consider human rights as a way of defining state crime.

Human rights include:

• Natural rights that people naturally have by virtue of existing such as the right to life, liberty and free speech.

• Civil rights such as the right to vote, to privacy, to a fair trial or to education.

Schwendingers (1975):

• Argue we should define state crime as the violation of people’s basic human rights by the state.

• States that practise racism, sexism or economic exploitation are committing crimes as they deny people of basic human rights.

Risse et al (1999):

• Argues that one advantage of this definition is that virtually all states care about their human rights image.

• This makes states susceptible to shaming and gives leverage to make them respect their citizen’s rights.

Cohen (1996):

• Criticises the Schwendingers’ view as clear violations of human rights such as torture are clearly crimes whereas economic exploitation are not self-evidently criminal even if morally unacceptable.

Green and Warde:

• Counter this idea of the right to liberty being available to all if people are too malnourished to exercise it - governments have permitted the export of food from a famine area eg. UK vs Irish in the 1840s - a clear denial of human rights.