How to Define "State Crime"? A Difficult Concept

Introduction

State crime is a concept that can be viewed from diverse perspectives. There are criminological and sociological aspects of the concept. Moreover, the concept is viewed differently amongst different stakeholders and in various contexts. As such, the difficulty of providing an appropriate definition for ‘single crime’ will be explored.

It is difficult to define state criminality because of the controversies surrounding the concept itself. Specifically, ‘crime’ is understood differently amongst various stakeholders. To begin with, ‘crime’ has a specific legal definition at the state level. Even so, there are other definitions of crime that falls outside the scope of criminology. For example, actions that include sexism, exploitation and imperialism are deemed to be criminal in nature. The area of critical criminology further considers the concept of crime to include injurious and harmful behavior including those that are not considered by nation states to be illegal but are viewed by laws, covenants or treaties as crime (Barak, 1990, p. 13). The harmful acts including behaviors such as disinformation, rape and murder. The concept of state crime can further include subtle offences that can cause social injury such as destroying economies or bankruptcy. Evidently, different stakeholders understand the term ‘crime’ in diverse ways. This is an indication that crime has several meanings from the things that are conventionally illegal such as murder to non-conventional ones such as sexism. In fact, a minor offense such as bankruptcy has also been included as part of the definition of crime. Therefore, the diverse ways in which ‘crime’ is understood makes it even more challenging to come up with a single meaning for state criminality. In essence, it would be difficult to reach consensus about the meaning of state crime yet the term ‘crime’ by itself has several definitions.

The circumstances of certain actions can influence the definition of state crime. According to Mullins & Rothe (2007, p. 137), a state can take responsibility for actions considered to be international crime depending on the circumstances that led to such a breach. The situation of Sudan serves as a good example of the context that can influence the meaning of state crime. In 2002, the people in Darfur were given promises that the area would be developed if the rebels stopped fighting. Unfortunately, 11 police officers from South Africa were killed after a few weeks. On February 2003, an additional 200 soldiers were killed by a group of insurgents (Mullins & Rothe, 2007, p. 143). The government gave the rebels an ultimatum demanding that they should surrender in ten days failure to which they would suffer serious consequences. The rebels refused to retreat prompting the government to use the army to contain the situation. As a result, about 210,000 people were killed with Darfuris totally to 2.2 million generally being affected (Mullins & Rothe, 2007, p. 143). In this case, the use of the military cannot be described as state crime because the situation required the use of excessive force. If the military had not intervened the situation would have been worse as more people would have continued to die. Ordinarily, the act of killing is a criminal offense. However, under the circumstances the military cannot be said to have engaged in state crime because if they did not use such force then the insurgents would have killed more state agents. Clearly, it is challenging to define state crime when one has to look at the circumstances surrounding certain actions. From the legal perspective, killing is a crime because it infringes on an individual’s right to life. However, in the context of extreme violence like was the case of Sudan, the kind of force applied by the military can be described as necessary. However, the same action would amount to state crime if the military killed unarmed civilians. Therefore, the context and circumstances of particular actions make it difficult to give a specific definition for the concept of state crime.

The factors considered in defining state crime contribute to the difficulty of providing an appropriate definition. State terrorism shows the reasons why it is difficult to define a state’s criminality. On one hand, there is need to weigh the motives behind state terrorism (McKeown, 2011, p. 75). This means that there is need to determine whether the state is using terrorism as a way of pursuing its objectives. This approach implies that it would be wrong to out rightly criminalize state crime. Instead, the motive for the government’s actions has to be considered before concluding that the government acted in a legal or illegal manner. On the other hand, Blakely (2009, p. 75) argues that the actions associated with terrorism should be the main focus rather than the actor’s nature. This approach implies that the government being the actor and the motive behind it is immaterial. As such, actions such as intimidation and violence from the government would automatically mean that the government has committed a crime. Furthermore, state terrorism can be viewed both externally and internally. Specifically, state terrorism can be directed against internal enemies or externally against foreigners. This shows that the concept associated with state crime is broad. Therefore, it would be difficult to provide a comprehensive definition for the concept considering its broad nature.

The definitions associated with state crime pose so much difficulty because the scope of criminology is unclear. To begin with, state crime can be defined as acts that breach the law. Additionally, it can be regarded as conceptions that focus on the violation of human rights. As such, there is a challenge because there has been long-standing debates about the subject matter and scope of criminology (Grewcock, 2008, p. 146). State crime has not been clearly defined both at the international or domestic level. Usually, the state seeks to arrest and charge people who have violated the law. However, little focus is placed on law enforcement personnel who infringe on people’s rights. Specifically, state agents can violate human rights through racial discrimination, aggression, genocide and slavery. The difficulty of defining state crime lies in the extent to which the actions of state officers can be considered a crime. For instance, behavior that is socially injurious can be deemed to be a crime. Moreover, state crime can be limited to serious human rights violations such as state terrorism and political killings on a massive scale. However, this definition would ignore actions such as detaining ‘un-authorized non-citizens like is the case in Australia (Grewcock, 2008, p. 149). In other words, defining state crime can create problem because the definition provided may be inadequate. If the concept is used to define serious crimes committed by law enforcement agents, then other offenses such as detention may be ignored yet they equally infringe on people’s rights.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that state crime is a complex concept. Although it appears to be simple, various factors make it difficult to give a concrete definition. The meaning of the concept is influenced by the circumstances of particular actions. Furthermore, the concept is controversial as it is viewed differently amongst various stakeholders. In addition, the motive for certain acts affects whether or not they are perceived as crimes. In a nutshell, an appropriate definition cannot be provided for ‘state crime’ because it’s meaning keeps on changing depending on things such as motive, context and stakeholders.

Bibliography

Barak, G 1990, ‘Crime, Criminology and Human Rights: Towards an Understanding of State Criminality’, The Journal of Human Justice Vol. 2(1) (pp. 11-28).

Blakeley, R 2009, ‘ Conceptualising State Terrorism’, in State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South. Hoboken, NJ: Routledge (pp. 25-52).

Grewcock, M 2008, ‘State Crime: Some Conceptual Issues’, in T Anthony and C Cunneen (Eds) The Critical Criminology Companion. Annandale, NSW: Hawkins Press (pp. 146-157).

McKeown, A 2011, ‘The Structural Production of State Terrorism: Capitalism, Imperialism and International Class Dynamics’, Critical Studies on Terrorism Vol. 4(1) (pp. 75-93).

Mullins, CW and Rothe, DL 2007, ‘ The Forgotten Ones: The Darfuri Genocide’, Critical Criminology, 15 (pp. 135-158).