Originally published at the University of South Florida in CCJ4933 TOP: Violence

As said by astronomer Carl Sagan, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The same concept can be applied to the field of criminology where criminologists, citizens and entire nations have largely avoided crimes committed by states. Above all else, crimes against humanity and human rights violations have been ignored for the pacification of society. In the analysis to follow, crimes against humanity and human rights violation will be studied together for crimes against humanity, such as murder, genocide,enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violences are violations of basic human rights.

Throughout the course of criminology, there has been little writing on crimes of the state. Among various types of human rights violations and crimes against humanity, is the crime of genocide. In documented genocides alone, estimates of the total death toll are greater than 52 million, on the high end of the spectrum. Yet in a study conducted by George Yacoubian, titled the (In)Significance of Genocidal Behavior to the Discipline of Criminology, only twelve of a studied 12,000 papers covered the subject of genocide. (Yacoubian, 2000) Criminologists Smeulers and Haveman agree that “criminologists have written very little on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide,” as demonstrated in their study of international crimes. (Haveman & Smeulers, 2014)

There can be no expectation of preventing future atrocities unless these crimes become mainstream information. Crimes against humanity, committed by state actors, will never have the attention of the general population if these crimes are not taken seriously by the criminologists who study them. Yet, future generations of criminologists continue to lack exposure to these type of crimes.In the opinions of Rothe and Rosse, “if state crime is one of the most devastating and costly types of crime then it would seem an appropriate topic to somehow make its way into most, if not all, of the leading introductory textbooks on criminology.” Yet of eight leading criminology textbooks, only five mention crimes of the state. Furthermore, only two even briefly address the reality of state-sponsored terrorism. (Rothe, 2009) So, why do criminologists seem to ignore crimes against humanity in both their research and teachings?

Firstly, it can be hypothesized that criminology fails to address crimes against humanitydue to the fact that these type of crimes hover on the brink of what criminology encompasses, despite afflicting nations worldwide. The idea of criminology covering crimes of the state is in some ways contradictio in terminis, contradictory. If crimes are actions defined and prohibited by the state, the state cannot be criminal unless that state breaks its own law. As said by Green and Ward, “If states define what is criminal, a state can only be criminal on those rare occasions when it denounces itself for breaking its own laws.” (Green & Ward, 2004)

What Green and Ward are attempting to prove is the principle of nullem cimen sine lege (no crime without law) and the improbability of a state reprimanding itself for its own actions. The human race should not continue to stand by and allow crimes against humanity to be a state-defined social problem. Humanitarians should look beyond governments to set standards, conduct investigations and pass judgements. The state should not be outside of the realm of punishment as they currently are.

Suppose the educated populous determined that crimes against humanity do fall outside the realm of criminology. That should not signify the end of studying, preventing or intervening in such issues. Yet the human population makes little effort to combat violations of their own human rights.

According to Stan Cohen, many people are in denial about the oppression and suffering that occurs worldwide. (Cohen, 2000) Cohen would agree that though many individuals know violent acts happen occasionally, they continue to deny the scale on which the acts happen. It has become commonplace in today’s society to deny or ignore uncomfortable knowledge. Violent, corrupt, ineffectual and illegal practices are unpleasant for people to process, therefor they do not make an attempt to do so. In today’s world, ignoring current issues is as simple as turning the channel or scrolling past posts on the internet. This willful blindness allows genocides, like that of the Yazidis by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and cyclical poverty, like that perpetrated by the United States of America, to continue to occur.

When given the opportunity to acknowledge failure, nations often react poorly by controlling discourse with the use of euphemisms. Euphemisms intentionally re-word unpleasant terms to mask the truth. This helps “enable the perpetrators slide into self-deception.” (Watts, 2016) States are able to define problems in a manner they see fit, therefore classifying crimes beyond the realm of public knowledge. Before the public is able to form an educated opinion about the actions of their government, they are too soon fed false information.

When the United States Illegally invaded Iraq, the reality of their actions was masked by the term “regime change.” After the decision of the United Nations, to ban torture, the U.S. continued to utilize torture techniques under the new name of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EIT.) When citizens attempt to bring concealed information to light, they are often punished by their own governments for leaking that information, as can be seen in the case of Edward Snowden, who is currently seeking asylum from the U.S. in Russia.

According to Elias’ theory of the civilizational process, Western civilization and modernity have become increasingly peaceful and disinclined to violence. He claims that compared to previous times, people live with less overt aggression and rage, and that this is due to the state’s ameliorating . Although this might sound realistic, there are numerous issues with Elias’ claim. Firstly, Elias’ theory fails to explain how governments can employ large-scale violence, nevertheless recruit others to carry out said tasks, in a time of increasing peace. Second, if government is made up of evolved, amicable individuals, this government should, too, be increasingly peaceful.The state strives to be a key source of social and moral order, while crimes against humanity continue behind the cover of manipulative deception.

Since crimes against humanity fall into a grey area of criminology, many have attempted to redefine the actions that should be addressed within the field of criminology. The Schwendingers take a unique stance, claiming that “any person, social system or social relationship that denies or abrogates basic human rights is criminal.” Their view holds that the violation of basic human rights, such as the rights to sexual, racial and economic equality, should be considered criminal, while others only expend their working definitions to definable actions. The Schwendingers elaborate to explain all that should be considered standard for well-being with the following:

All persons must be guaranteed the fundamental prerequisites for well-being including food, shelter, clothing, medical services, challenging work and recreational experiences, as well as security from predatory individuals or repressive and imperialistic social elites… these material requirements, basic services and enjoyable relationships are not to be regarded as reward or privileges.” (Schwindingers, 1970)

Cohen responds to the Schwindingers’ proposition by saying that they have fallen into a trap by relying on their ethical response. Contrary to Cohen’s view, humanitarianism and legalism are not mutually exclusive. Ethics should be included in the conversation about crimes against humanity. Human rights are given off the basis of established right and wrongs- something that no law can provide, rather something that exists within humanity.

It would be preposterous to regulate right and wrong solely on the basis of current laws and regulations, as they are merely a product of modern interests. It does not follow logically to claim that because laws exist, they must be the right laws or be just laws. Cohen states that relying on ethical responses would be expanding state crime into “everything we do not like at the time,” yet this is the result of blindly following legislation and allowing the state to control the spectrum of criminology. (Cohen, 1993) To halt crimes against humanity, the conversation needs to be expanded interdisciplinarily, to philosophers, legals and criminologists alike.

In summary, theorists like Friedrichs are correct that “international crimes like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and massive violations of human rightshave a long history that insist that these crimes are now carried out globally because the conditions of globalization produce expanding opportunities for such crimes.” (Friedrichs, 2013)States go unpunished and unregulated as they make a mockery of the intentions of legal bodies. Nations cannot be allowed to continue to murder their own people or deprive them of basic needs. Criminology must find a way to address crimes against humanity and human rights violations.The argument for the inclusion of punishment for human rights violations is better suited in philosophy and logical, ethical debates as it is an interdisciplinary and international issue. Unless something is changed, these violations will continue indefinitely.

Cohen, S. (1993). Human rights and crimes of the state: The culture of denial. <i>Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,</i> 26(2), 97-115,<blockquote></blockquote>Cohen, S. (2000.) <i>States of denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering</i>. Cambridge: Polity Press.<blockquote></blockquote>Friedrichs, D., Rothe, D. (2013). Crimes of globalization as a criminological project: The case of international financial institutions. In F. Packes (ed.), Globalization and the challenge to criminology (pp. 45-63). London: Routledge. <blockquote></blockquote>Green, P., & Ward, R. (2004) State crime theory: The state, civil society and marginalization. <i>Critical Criminology,</i> 22(1), 127-138.<blockquote></blockquote>Haveman, R., & Smeulers, A. (2014, November 20). Criminology in a State of Denial - Towards a Criminology of International Crimes: Supranational Criminology. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2526930"><span class="s2"></span></a><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2526930">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i...</a><blockquote></blockquote>Robertson, G. (2013). Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice (4th ed.). New York: The New Press<blockquote></blockquote>Rothe, D. L. (2009). <i>State Criminality: the Crime of All Crimes</i>. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.<blockquote></blockquote>Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1970). Defenders of order or guardians of human rights? Issues in Criminology, 5(2), 123-157<blockquote></blockquote>Watts, R. (2016). <i>Critical Criminological Perspectives</i>. London: Macmillan.
Yacoubian, G. (2000). The (In)Significance of Genocidal Behavior to the Discipline of Criminology. Retrieved November 20, 2017, from <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1008312732333.pdf">https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:10...</a>