State Crime Essay Plan Flashcards
(16 cards)
What is the main point and explanation of Green & Ward and McLaughlin’s approach to state crime?
Green & Ward define state crime as illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by, or with the complicity of, state agencies. McLaughlin identifies four types: political, economic, social/cultural, and crimes of policing/security. This classification highlights how states can commit harm that often goes unpunished due to their power.
What is a real-life example that supports McLaughlin’s classification of state crime?
The 1994 Rwandan genocide, where the government led and enabled mass killings of the Tutsi population, is an example of social/cultural state crime.
How can Green & Ward and McLaughlin’s definitions be applied to real-world societies?
Their work applies to both authoritarian and democratic regimes, allowing researchers to label harm done by the state, even if it’s legal under national law. It helps sociologists study state wrongdoing objectively.
What is one key criticism of using Green & Ward / McLaughlin’s definition?
Critics argue the definitions are vague and lack legal clarity, making it difficult to enforce or prosecute state crimes in practice.
What is the main point and explanation of the human rights approach to state crime?
Schwendinger & Schwendinger argue state crime should include human rights violations, not just legal breaches. Cohen builds on this, showing how states deny or justify their crimes through ‘spirals of denial’ (denial, justification, reinterpretation).
What is a real-life example of the human rights approach to state crime?
The 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal, where US soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners, is an example of state crime denied and later downplayed by the government.
How can the human rights approach be applied to the study of modern states?
It allows sociologists to criticise democratic governments that hide harm behind legal loopholes and national interests. It exposes moral wrongdoing that legal systems may ignore.
What is one key criticism of the human rights approach?
Human rights are socially constructed and vary by culture, making them hard to define universally or enforce through international law.
What is the main point and explanation of Kelman & Hamilton’s theory of crimes of obedience?
State crimes are committed by individuals who obey authority. Through authorisation, routinisation, and dehumanisation, people distance themselves from the consequences of their actions and follow orders without moral questioning.
What is a real-life example of crimes of obedience?
The My Lai massacre (Vietnam, 1968) involved US soldiers killing over 500 civilians under military orders, showing how obedience can lead to atrocities.
How can crimes of obedience theory be applied to modern institutions?
It helps explain how ordinary people become agents of state crime in armies, police forces, or bureaucracies. It’s useful in understanding large-scale state violence like torture or war crimes.
What is one key criticism of Kelman & Hamilton’s theory?
It doesn’t address the structural causes of state crime, such as capitalism, racism, or global power dynamics — it focuses only on psychological obedience.
What is the main point and explanation of globalisation and state crime?
Rothe & Friedrichs argue that global financial bodies (e.g. IMF, World Bank) enable state crime by imposing harmful economic policies on poorer countries. Taylor adds that global capitalism encourages crimes of the powerful by increasing inequality and deregulation.
What is a real-life example of globalisation leading to state crime?
Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) in countries like Zambia led to deep cuts in healthcare and welfare, harming millions and increasing vulnerability and unrest.
How can globalisation theories be applied to state crime today?
They show how states are influenced by global capitalist structures, committing or enabling harm to maintain economic power. It helps analyse exploitation in both developed and developing nations.
What is one key criticism of globalisation-based explanations of state crime?
These theories often ignore the role of individual agency and cultural factors — they overemphasise structural forces and may not explain specific decisions by states.
