REVISION – MILLIE PRICE

STATE CRIME

DEFINITION

State crime is illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by or with permission of state agencies e.g. Genocide (e.g. Holocaust) or war crimes.

QUESTION THAT COULD COME UP:- “ASSESS SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE TPYES AND

PATTERNS OF STATE CRIMES”

What would go into this question?:

1. McLaughlin (2001) 4 categories of state crime.

He identifies the 4 types of state crime2. Political Crimes: corruption and censorship3. Crimes committed by security/police force: genocide

(holocaust), torture4. Economic crimes: official violations of health and safety

laws 5. Social and cultural Crimes: institutional racism

CONTINUED..

THE SCALE OF STATE CRIMES:

State crimes are hard to investigate into how much of it actually goes on

Normally this is because they are perpetrated by big organisations/companies that are wealthy and powerful (also Bouigsie) therefore they have the money and power to hide what they are doing.

Often they are invisible and hidden from the public eye An example of this is Cambodia 1975-1978 where Pol Pot the leader of

the Khmer Rouge Government is believed to have killed up to two million people (a fifth of the countries entire population) because of slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care).

This was kept hidden because the government perpetrated it – therefore they controlled what went into the media and stopped it from coming out

CONTINUED..

This is supported by.. The problem of national sovereignty

States like Cambodia are the supreme authority within their borders.

This makes it extremely difficult for external authorities such as the united nations to intervene because the the state rules what happens.

This means that the state is the source of the law meaning they decide what crimes are. They also manage the CJ system and prosecute offenders. This meaning they can INVADE THEIR OWN LAWS

CONTINUED..

However.. Another sociological explanation for the types and patterns of state crime is the theory of ‘THE SPIRAL OF DENIAL’ - COHEN

Cohen says that dictatorships generally deny committing human right abuse. In doing so, they justify this in three stages:

1. they simply say ‘IT DIDN'T’ HAPPEN’ e.g. the state claims there was no massacre – but then human rights organisations, victims and the media show it did happen e.g. through graves or photos

2. They would say that ‘IF IT DID HAPPEN IT IS SOMETHING ELSE’ e.g. they will say its not what it looks like / or it was self defense

3. They will say ‘EVEN IF IT IS WHAT YOU SAY IT IS, ITS JUSTIFIED’ e.g. to protect national security

CONTINUED..

THE NEUTRALISATION THEORY supports the spiral of denial.

The neutralisation theory is where the state and their officials deny or justify their crimes.

MATZA(1957) identified 5 neutralisation techniques that delinquents use to justify their deviant behavior:

1. Denial of injury: they started it, we are the real victims2. Denial of victims: they exaggerated it, they are terrorists, they are used to

violence3. Denial of responsibility: they would say that they are just obeying orders 4. Condemning the condemners: the whole world is picking on us5. Appeal to higher loyalties: self righteous justification

Cohen says how “these techniques do not seek to deny that the events have happened, but thy seek to negotiate or impose a different construction of the event”. Therefore these are ways that the state deny responsibility of state crimes.