Globalisation refers to the increasing interconnectedness of societies, so that what happens in one locality is shaped by distant events and vice versa. Globalisation has many causes including spread if information communication technology, the global mass media, cheap flights, deregulation of markets and easy movements of businesses.
Held et al argues there’s been globalisation of crime; an increasing interconnectedness of crime across national borders. The same process that brought globalisation of legitimate activities has also brought the spread of transnational organised crime. Globalisation creates new opportunities for crime and new means of committing crime, for example cyber crime. Manuel Castells (1998) argues because of globalisation there is a globalised criminal economy worth £1 trillion. This takes a number of forms such as arms dealing, human trafficking, green crime and many others. The global criminal economy has both a demand and supply side. A reason for scale of transnational organised crime is demand from the rich west. However the global criminal economy couldn’t survive without a supply side that provides the source for demands of the west, such as drugs and prostitutes. This supply is linked to the globalisation process. For example third world drug producing countries such as Columbia have large populations of impoverished peasants. For them drug investment is attractive; it’s simple to produce and commands high prices. In Columbia, 20% of peasants rely on cocaine production for their livelihood; cocaine out sells all other exports. Thus to understand drug crime we cannot focus only on countries where drugs are consumed.
Globalisation creates new insecurities and produces a new mentality of risk consciousness where risk is global rather than isolated. For example rise in economic migrants has led to concerns of risk of disorder and increasing need to protect borders. Much knowledge of risks comes from the media which often exaggerates dangers we face. For example with immigration the media create moral panics of supposed threats, often fuelled by politicians. Negative coverage of immigrants has led to hate crimes against minorities in European countries. One result is the intensification of social control at the national level. The UK has toughened borders; there is now no limit as to how long a person may be held in immigration detention. Other European states with land borders have introduced fences to prevent illegal crossings. Another result of globalised risk is increased international cooperation in various wars on drugs, terrorism ect, particularly since terrorist attacks off September 11th, 2001.
Socialist Ian Taylor (1997) argues globalisation has led to changes in the pattern and extent of crime. By giving free rein to market forces globalisation has created greater inequality and rising crime. Globalisation has created crime at both ends of the social spectrum. It has allowed transnational corporations to switch manufacturing to low wage countries, producing job insecurity, unemployment and poverty. Deregulation means government has little control over their own economies, for example to create jobs or raise taxes while state spending on welfare has declined. Marketisation encourages people to see themselves as individual consumers and undermining social cohesion. Left realists argue increasingly materialistic culture promoted by the global media portrays success in terms of lifestyle of consumption. All these factors create insecurity and widening inequality that encourage people, especially the poor to commit crime. The lack of legitimate opportunity destroys self respect and drives the unemployed to look for illegitimate ones such as the drugs trade. At the same time globalisation creates criminal opportunities for elite groups on a grand scale. For example deregulation of financial markets creates opportunity for movement of funds across the globe to avoid taxation. Similarly the creation of transnational bodies such as the European Union offers opportunities for fraudulent claims for subsidies; estimated to be $7 billion per annum. Globalisation has led to new patterns in employment which create new opportunities for crime. It has led to increased use of subcontracting to recruit flexible workers, often working illegally for less than minimum wage. Taylor’s theory is useful in linking global trends in the capitalist economy to changes in the patterns of crime. However it does not adequately explain the changes make people behave in criminal ways. For example not all the poor turn to crime.
Hobbs and Dunningham found that the way crime is organised is linked to economic changes brought by globalisation. It increasingly involves individuals with contracts acting as a hub around which a loose knit network forms, composed of other individuals seeking opportunities and linking legitimate and illegitimate activities. Hobbs and Dunningham argues this contrasts with large scale, hierarchical mafia style criminal organisation of the past, such as the Kray brothers of east London.
These new forms of organisation sometimes have international links, especially with the drugs trade, but crime is still rooted in its local context. For example individuals still need local contacts and networks to find opportunities and to sell their drugs. Hobbs and Dunningham thus conclude crime works as a “glocal” system; it’s locally based but with global connections. This means the form it takes varies from place to place, according to local conditions, even if influenced by global factors such as availability of drugs from abroad. Hobbs and Dunningham argue that changes associated with globalisation have led to changes in patterns of crime, for example the shift from a hierarchical gang structure to loose flexible networks. However it’s not clear that such patterns are new, nor that have the older structures disappeared. It may be the two have always coexisted. Conclusions may not be generalisable to other criminal activities elsewhere.
Misha Glenny (2008) looks at the relationship between globalisation and criminal organisation in “McMafia”; the organisations emerging from Russia and Eastern Europe following the fall of communism. Glenny traces origins of transnational organised crime to the breakup of the Soviet Union after 1989 which coincided with deregulation of global markets. Under communism the soviet state regulated prices of everything. However following the fall of communism, the Russian government deregulated most sectors of the economy except for national resources such as oil. These commodities remained at their old soviet price, often a fraction of the world market price. Thus anyone with access to funds, such as former KGB men, could buy up resources like oil cheaply. By selling them abroad for huge profits they became Russia’s new capitalist class, known as the oligarchs. Meanwhile the collapse of communist states heralded a period of increasing disorder. To protect wealth capitalists turned to mafias that began to spring up. These were often alliances between ex KGB and convicts. Among the most ruthless were the Chechen mafia. However these mafias were unlike the old Italian mafias which were based on family ties with a clear hierarchy. The new Russian organisations were purely economic organisations formed to pursue self interest. For example the Chechen mafia, originated in Chechnya franchised operations to non Chechen groups. Chechen mafia became a brand sold to other protection rackets so long as they carried their word, otherwise the brand would be damaged. With the assistance of violent organisations the billionaires protected their wealth and found a means to move it out of the country. Criminal organisations were vital to the entry of the new Russian capitalist class in the world economy. At the same time the Russian mafias were able to build links with criminal organisations with other parts in the world.
Green or environmental crime can be defined as crime against the environment. Much green crime is linked by globalisation and increasing interconnectedness of societies. Regardless of the division of the world into separate nation states, the planet is a single eco system and threats to the eco system are increasingly global rather than local. For example atmospheric pollution from industry in one country can turn to acid rain that falls in another country, poisoning rivers. Similarly accidents in nuclear industry, such as in Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 can spread radioactive material over thousands of miles, showing how a problem in one locality can have worldwide effects.
Most threats to human well being and the eco system are now human made rather than natural. Unlike past natural dangers such as famine the risks we face today are our own making. Ulrich Beck (1992) argues in today’s late modern society we can provide adequate resources for all. However an increase in productivity and technology that sustains it creates new manufactured risks; dangers we have never faced before. Many of these risks involve harm to environment and its consequences for humanity such as global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from industry. Like climate change many of these risks are global rather than local in nature, leading Beck to describe late modern society as global risk society.
There’s the question of legality in green criminology. Traditional criminology has not been concerned with such behaviour, since its subject matter is defined by the criminal law, and no law has been broken. The starting point for this approach is the national and international laws and regulators concerning the environment. For example Situ and Emmons (2000) define environmental crime as an unauthorized act that violates the law. Like other traditional approaches in criminology it investigates patterns and causes of law breaking. The advantage of this approach is it clearly defines subject matter. However it is criticised for accepting official definitions of environmental problems and crimes which are often shaped by powerful groups such as big business to serve their own interests. Green criminology takes a more radical approach. It starts from the notion of harm rather than criminal law. For example Rob White (2008) argues the proper subject of criminology is any action that harms the physical environment or human and non human animals within it, even if no law has been broken. In fact many environmental crimes are not illegal thus the subject matter of green criminology is wider than that of traditional criminology. Thus green criminology is a transgressive criminology; overstepping bounds of traditional criminology to include new issues. Furthermore different countries have different laws, thus harmful action in one country may not be a crime in the other. Thus legal definitions cannot provide a consistent standard of harm since they’re the product of individual nation states and their political processes. Thus by moving away from the legal definition green criminology can develop a global perspective on environmental harm. This approach is like the Marxist view of crimes of the powerful. Marxists argue the capitalist class are able to shape the law and define crime so that their own exploitative activities are not criminalised, or where they are to ensure enforcement is weak. Similarly green criminologists argue powerful interests; especially nation states and transnational corporations are able to define in their own interests what counts as unacceptable environmental harm.
In general nation states and transnational corporations adopt what White (2008) calls an anthropocentric or human centred view of environmental harm. This view assumes humans have a right to dominate nature for their own ends and puts economic growth before the environment. White contrasts this with an ecocentric view that sees humans and their environment as interdependent, so that environmental harm hurts humans also. This view sees both humans and environment as liable to exploitation, particularly by global capitalism. In general green criminology adopts the ecocentric view as the basis for judging environmental harm.
Green criminologist Nigel South (2008) classifies green crime into primary and secondary types. Primary green crimes are crimes that result directly from the destruction and degradation of the earth’s resources. South identifies four main types of primary deviance. Crimes of air pollution; burning fossil fuels from industry and transport contributes to global warming. The potential criminals are governments, business and consumers. Crimes of deforestation; for example crops destroyed by pesticide and illegal logging. Criminals include the state and big business. Crimes of species and animal rights; many species are under threat and there is trafficking in animals and animal parts. Meanwhile old crimes such as dog fights are on the increase. Crimes of water pollution; unclean drinking water and marine pollution threaten humans and biodiversity. Criminals are business who dump toxic waste and governments who discharge untreated sewage.
Secondary green crime is crime that grows out of the flouting of rules aimed at preventing or regulating environmental disasters. For example governments often break their own regulations and cause environmental harms. An example is state violence against opposition groups. States condemn terrorism but then resort to the same methods themselves, for example in 1985 the French secret service blew up a green peace ship that protested against nuclear weapons testing in the pacific. Day (1991) argues any oppositional group to nuclear power are treated as enemies of the state. Another example is hazardous waste and organised crime. Disposal of toxic waste from the chemical and nuclear industries is highly profitable. Because of the high cost of legal disposal businesses seek to dispose of waste illegally. For example in Italy eco mafias benefit from dumping waste; much dumped at sea. Reece Walters (2007) argues the ocean floor has been a radioactive waste dump for decades. Illegal waste dumping often has a globalised character. For example Fred Bridgland (2006) describes how after the 2004 tsunami barrels of radioactive waste dumped by European countries washed up on beaches of Somalia. Elsewhere big business ships waste to the third world where costs are lower to dispose waste. Similarly transnational corporations may offload pharmaceuticals that have been banned in the west on grounds of safety onto the third world. Illegal waste disposal illustrates the problem of law enforcement in a globalised world. The very existence of laws to regulate waste disposal in developed countries pushes up costs to business and creates incentive to dump illegally in the third world. In some cases it’s not even illegal since less developed countries may lack necessary legislation to outlaw it.
Both strengths and weaknesses of green criminology arise from its focus on global environmental concerns. It recognises the importance of environmental issues and the need to address the harms and risks of environmental damage both to humans and animals. However by focusing on the broader concept of harms rather than legally defined crimes it’s hard to define boundaries of its field of study clearly. Defining these boundaries involves making moral or political statements about which actions ought to be regarded as wrong. Critics argue this is a matter of values and cannot be established objectively.
Marxist William Chambliss (1989) argues sociologists should investigate state organised crimes as well as crimes of capitalism. Penny Green and Tony Ward (2005) define state crime as illegal or deviant activities perpetrated by state agencies. It includes all forms of crime committed by or on behalf of states and governments in order to further policies. State crimes include genocide, wars, assassination ect. State crimes do not include acts that benefit individuals, for example accepting bribes. Eugene McLaughlin (2001) identifies four categories of state crime; Political crimes such as corruption or censorship, crimes by police such as torture, economic crimes such as violations of health and safety laws and social and cultural crimes such as institutional racism.
State crime is one of the most serious forms of crime. The power of the state enables it to commit large scale crimes with widespread victimisation. For example in 1975 its believed Pol pot’s government killed two million people. Michalowski and Kramer (2006) argue great power and great crimes are inseparable. The states monopoly of violence gives it the potential to inflict massive harm, while its power means it’s well placed to conceal its crimes or evade punishment for them. Although media attention is often on state crimes in the third world, democratic states such as Britain are guilty of military use of torture in Iraq. However the principle of national sovereignty, that states are the supreme authority within their own borders, makes it difficult for external authorities such as the United Nations to intervene. This is despite the existence of international conventions and laws against acts such as genocide, war crimes and racial discrimination. It is also the state’s role to define what is criminal and to manage the criminal justice system and prosecute offenders. State crimes undermine the system of justice. Its power to make the law also means it can avoid defining its own actions as harmful or criminal. For example in Nazi Germany the state created laws to sterilise the disabled. State control of the criminal justice system also means it can persecute its enemies.
One approach to the study of state crime is through the notion of human rights. There is no single list of what constitutes as human rights. However most definitions include the following; Natural rights that people are regarded having simply by virtue of existing, such as rights to life, liberty and free speech. Civil rights, such as the right to vote, privacy, to a fair trial or education. A right is an entitlement to something; as such it acts as a protection against the power of the state over an individual. For example the right to a fair trial means that the state may not imprison a person without due process of law.
Critical criminologists such as Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1970) argue we should define crime in terms of violation of human rights rather than breaking of legal rules. This means that states that deny individuals human rights must be regarded as criminal. For example states that practice imperialism, racism or sexism or inflict economic exploitation on citizens are committing crimes because they deny individuals and groups their basic rights. From a human rights perspective the state can be seen a perpetrator of crime and not simply the authority that defines and punishes crime. In this view the definition of crime is inevitably political. For example in the 1930s the Nazis attacked human rights of Jews legally by passing laws that persecuted them. If we accept a legal definition we risk becoming subservient to the state that makes the law. The Schwendingers’ argue that the sociologist’s role should be to defend human rights, if necessary against the state and its laws. Thus their views are an example of transgressive criminology as it oversteps traditional boundaries of criminology that are defined by the criminal law. However Stanley Cohen (2001) criticise the Schwendingers’ view. For example while gross violations of human rights such as genocide are clearly crimes, other acts such as economic exploitation is not self evidently criminal even if we find them morally unacceptable. Other critics argue there’s only limited agreement on what counts as human rights. For example while life is a human right, some would say freedom from poverty is not.
Although Cohen criticises the Schwendingers he nevertheless sees the issue of human rights and state crimes as increasingly central to both political debate and criminology as a result of two factors. One is the growing impact of the international human rights movement, for example through the work of organisations such as amnesty international. Another is the increased focus of criminology on victims.
Cohen looks at the ways states legitimate human rights crimes. He argues while dictatorships simply deny committing human rights abuses democratic states have to legitimate actions in more complex ways. In doing so their justifications follow a three stage spiral of denial. Stage one; “it didn’t happen”, for example the state claims there was no massacre. But then human rights organisations, victims and the media show it did happen with evidence. Stage two; if it did happen, “it” was something else. The state says it’s not what it looks like, “it was self defence”. Stage three; they try and justify their crimes, for example to “protect national security”.
Cohen examines ways in which states and their officials deny or justify their crimes. He draws on the work of Sykes and Matza (1957) who identify five neutralisation techniques that delinquents use to justify their deviant behaviour. Cohen shows how states use the same techniques when they are attempting to justify human rights violations such as torture. Denial of victim, they are terrorists”, Denial of injury; “they started it”, Denial of responsibility; “I was only obeying orders”, Condemning the condemners; “it’s worse elsewhere”, appeal to a higher loyalty “defending the free world”. These techniques do not seek to deny that the event has occurred. Cohen argues they seek to impose a different construction of events of what occurred.
It is often thought those who carry out crimes such as torture must be psychopaths; however research shows there is little psychological difference between them and normal people. Instead sociologists argue such actions are part of a role into which individuals are socialised. They focus on the social conditions in which such behaviour becomes acceptable. For example Kelman and Hamilton (1989) studied crimes of obedience such as the one at My Lai in Vietnam where soldiers murdered 400 civilians. Kelman and Hailton identify three features that produce crimes of obedience. Authorisation; when the acts are ordered or approved by those in authority, normal moral principles are replaced by the duty to obey. Routinisation; once the crime has been committed there is pressure to turn the act into routine which individuals can perform in a detached manner. Dehumanisation; when the enemy is portrayed as subhuman rather than human and described as animals where the usual principles of morality do not apply. Some argue modern society creates conditions for such crime on a vast scale. For example Zygmunt Bauman (1989) argues that the holocaust was a product of modernity, not a return to some premodern barbarism. Bauman argues for the Nazis to be able to commit mass murder many features of modernity were essential. These include science, technology and division of labour. He claims the key to understanding the holocaust is the ability of modern society to dehumanise the victims and turn mass murder into a routine administrative task.