There are state and
international laws
regarding human
rights
There is often
reluctance to
characterise
activities of
politicians + state
officials as crimes
State crime and criminology
The state claims a
monopoly on the
legitimate use of force
The use of force is viewed
differently when it is
perpetuated by individuals who
are seen as terrorists.
McLaughlin (2001): in both cases (state or terrorist) violence is being used,
but in one case violence is seen as legitimate and in the other it is seen as
illegitimate.
Link to labelling theory
The definition of what is legitimate
and illegitimate violence is contested.
E.g. those labelled as terrorists may
see themselves as freedom fighters.
Current example: The Israeli state may see
those resisting their occupation as of Gaza
as terrorists but many Arabs living in Gaza
see Israel as a terrorist state
Labels may shift over time, with
people who were once labelled as
terrorists becoming recognised as
legitimate governments.
E.g. the transformation of the African National Congress in South
Africa from a terrorist group to legitimate government and Nelson
Mandela from a dangerous terrorist to a respected statesman
It is sometimes argued that the
behaviour of terrorists is different
from that of states because the use
of terror for political ends often
targets civilians.
E.g. 9/11 or the 7/7 bombings in London
Cohen (1996): War crimes have only recently become a
criminological issue. They have become important
because of: (1) the growth of the human rights movement
and (2) the growth of victimology within criminology.
The extent of
state and
human rights
crimes
There are no
official
statistics or
victim surveys
that enable us
to estimate
how extensive
they are
Human rights/state
crimes are often invisible
and deliberately hidden
from public scrutiny
Understanding state crimes
Croall (1998): particular roles
are played by torturers,
terrorists and war criminals
to inflict pain or kill. These
acts become accepted and
routine.
Cohen (1996): Spiral of denial.
People are often reluctant to
admit that horrific acts are being
committed. Initially the state
denies the act, they are then
confronted by evidence which
they describe as 'self-defence'
and justify it as a matter of
protecting national security
Cohen (1996): Techniques of neutralisation:
justification and acknowledgement
of deviance/crime.
Denial of injury
Denial of victim
Denial of responsibility
Condemnation of the condemners
Appeal to higher loyalty e.g. religion,
sacred mission, working for a higher cause
Merton: Strain theory. State agencies often have conflicting goals
E.g. Chambliss (1995): the activities of the
central Intelligence Agency often broke
international laws because they priorities
ridding the world of communism