State Crime (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

What is state crime?

• Green and Ward (2012) define state crimes as:

illegal or deviant activities committed by, or with the support of, state agencies such as governments, the police, or the military, usually to protect or advance state interests

• State crimes are among the most serious forms of crime because they involve powerful institutions capable of causing harm on a massive scale

• These activities often break both domestic law and international law (e.g. human rights treaties, laws against genocide or torture)

The scale of state crime

• The power of the state gives it the ability to inflict extreme levels of harm

• Green and Ward (2012) estimate that governments were responsible for the deaths of around 262 million people in the 20th century through genocide, torture, imprisonment, and war crimes

The state is the source of law

• States have the authority to define what counts as a crime, enforce the law, and prosecute offenders

• However, this power also means states can:

  • conceal their own crimes

  • evade punishment by refusing to prosecute state officials

  • avoid criminalisation by not defining their harmful actions as crimes in the first place

• State crime undermines the rule of law and damages public trust in justice systems

• All kinds of states – including democracies such as Britain – have been implicated in crimes

• The principle of national sovereignty (that states are the supreme authority within their own borders) makes it difficult for external bodies like the United Nations to intervene

Types of state crime

• McLaughlin (2012) identifies four categories of state crime:

  • Political crimes: imprisonment or execution of political opponents without trial, censorship of the media, unauthorised surveillance of citizens and corruption

  • Crimes by security and police forces: Includes war crimes such as illegal invasions, genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, executions of prisoners of war, civilian massacres, and use of illegal chemical or biological weapons

  • Economic crimes: Theft of public funds by political elites, corruption and bribery of state officials by corporations and violations of health and safety laws

  • Social and cultural crimes: Failure to protect human rights or address institutional racism and discrimination

Examples of state crime

• Genocide in Rwanda: In 1994, the Hutu-led government incited ethnic violence against Tutsis.

  • Around 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. Initially, Hutu militia carried out killings, but many ordinary Hutus were forced to participate under threat of death

• The Challenger space shuttle disaster: An example of state-initiated corporate crime

  • In 1986, risky, negligent, and cost-cutting decisions by NASA and state agencies led to the shuttle exploding 73 seconds after launch, killing all 7 crew

• The Deepwater Horizon oil spill: An example of a state-facilitated corporate crime.

  • In 2010, the US government failed to regulate safety properly. The rig, leased by BP, exploded, killing 11 workers and causing the largest accidental oil spill in history

    • The disaster had massive health, environmental, and economic consequences

    • Regulators failed to oversee the industry or prevent cost-cutting

• Bagua, Peru: In 2009, state repression of indigenous environmental protests over Amazon land use laws

  • Police and military action left dozens dead and many more injured

War crimes

• Illegal wars: Under international law, wars are only legal in self-defence or if approved by the UN Security Council. The US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are often seen as illegal

  • Kramer & Michalowski (2005): argue the USA and UK falsely claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2003 to justify the invasion as 'self-defence'

• Crimes during or after war:

  • Whyte (2014): describes the USA’s 'neoliberal colonisation' of Iraq. The Iraqi constitution was changed to allow privatisation of the economy, and oil revenues were seized to pay for 'reconstruction'

  • In 2004 alone, $48 billion went to US firms, much of it unaccounted for. This is an example of state-corporate crime

Difficulties in defining state crime

• As with green crime, defining state crime is not straightforward and sociologists have proposed many definitions:

Domestic law

• Chambliss (1989) defines state crime as acts defined as criminal under the law and committed by state officials in their official role

• However, states make their own laws, so harmful acts may not be illegal under domestic law

• This allows states to avoid criminalising their own behaviour

International law

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

• International law provides globally agreed standards (e.g., genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity)

• However, enforcement is inconsistent, and powerful states often escape accountability

Social harms and zemiology

• Michalowski (1985) defines state crime as acts that cause harm, even if not illegal

• Similarly Hillyard et al. (2004) argue for zemiology – the study of harms whether or not they are legally defined as crime

• It creates a single standard that can be applied to different states to identify which ones are most harmful

• However, a 'harms' definition is vague and subjective

Human rights

• Schwendinger & Schwendinger (1975) argue that state crime should be defined as violations of human rights (e.g. torture, slavery, racism, and exploitation)

• They argue the legal definition of crime is political, as it serves the interests of states and sociologists should instead defend human rights

• This is a form of transgressive criminology, going beyond the limits of traditional law-based criminology

• Cohen (2001) criticises this approach, arguing that not all human rights abuses (e.g., economic exploitation) are self-evidently criminal, even if morally objectionable

Explaining state crime

• Genocides and other state crimes may be ordered by leaders, but they require the cooperation of ordinary soldiers, police, and civilians

• Sociologists ask why so many seemingly law-abiding people become involved in atrocities such as the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide

The authoritarian personality

• Adorno et al. (1950) argue that some people are more likely to obey authority due to their personality

• In Nazi Germany, strict and punitive socialisation produced widespread authoritarian personality types, making obedience to authority more common

• However, later research found little psychological difference between 'normal' people and perpetrators, suggesting personality alone cannot explain atrocities

Crimes of obedience

• Kelman & Hamilton (1989): Crimes occur when people obey orders without question. They identify three factors:

  • Authorisation: Individuals see themselves as simply following orders, so moral principles are replaced by duty to authority

  • Dehumanisation: Victims are portrayed as subhuman; morality no longer applies (e.g., Tutsis were called 'cockroaches' during the Rwandan genocide)

  • Routinisation: Atrocities become routine tasks carried out in a detached, bureaucratic way

Modernity

• Bauman (1989) argues that the Holocaust was not a breakdown of civilisation but a product of modernity

• Key features of modern society made mass murder possible:

  • Division of labour – responsibility was fragmented into small tasks for each individual

  • Bureaucratisation – killing was normalised as administrative work

  • Instrumental rationality – efficient methods were developed to achieve goals, regardless of morality

  • Science and technology – industrial systems (e.g., poison gas) were used to carry out genocide on a mass scale

• Bauman argued the Holocaust resembled a factory system, where the “product” was mass death

Evaluation of research into state crimes

Strengths

• Systematic and organised

  • Research shows that state crimes are usually planned and coordinated, not just the actions of a few rogue individuals

  • This highlights the role of bureaucracy, institutions, and state policy in enabling atrocities such as genocide or war crimes

• The role of the state

  • State crime research raises serious questions about legitimacy since the state is meant to enforce the law, but can also be the main perpetrator of crime

  • It exposes the double standards of justice, showing how states can both commit crimes and shield themselves from accountability

Criticisms

• Difficult to measure and research

  • Governments often hide or destroy evidence, restrict access to information, or criminalise opposition

  • As a result, the true scale of state crime is hard to establish.

• Denial and justification

  • Cohen (2001) argues that states frequently deny or excuse crimes

  • E.g., if civilians are killed in bombing raids, governments may deny responsibility or frame deaths as 'collateral damage' in pursuit of national security

• Not all genocides fit the model

  • Some atrocities do not rely on bureaucracy or a detached division of labour

  • The Rwandan genocide, e.g., was carried out directly by large, violent groups of civilians