Globalisation has contributed to green crime becoming a global issue for two reasons. First, environmental destruction in one area impacts all life worldwide as the planet is an interconnected ecosystem. Second, green crime is often committed by powerful transnational corporations working with governments to harm the environment for profit. These manufactured risks threaten the planet through issues like greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. However, policing green crime is difficult as international laws are weak or non-existent due to lack of agreement between nations. Radical criminologists argue for an expanded definition of green crime that considers any environmental harm a crime, while critics say this is a subjective rather than objective view. Green criminology recognizes the importance of environmental issues but is accused of bias in focusing on

1. Globalisation and crime in
contemporary society
Green crime
Crime against the enviroment

2. How is green crime linked to
globalisation
Green crime is increasingly
seen as a form of global
crime for two reasons
The planet is a single
ecosystem in which
humans being ,other species
and the enviroment are
interconnected and
interdependant .
Harm done to other species
or aspects of the
enviroment such as air
,water supplies , the ocean
and the rainforest are seen
as increasingly impacting
negatively on on the quality
and future of humanlife
where ever it is in the world .

3. Reason 2 –why green crime is
linked to globalisation
•
green crime is carried out by powerful
interests, particularly transnational
corporations such as oil and chemical
companies working with the co-operation of
nation states and local wealthy elites

4. Manufactured risks -Beck
•
Many of the threats to our ecosystem cames
from manufactured risks and this is a result of
massive demand for consumer goods and
technology which has an effect on
us(humanity) but on our enviroment to.
•
For example greenhouse gas emissions are
contributing to global warming and climate
change .

5. Policing green crime
Difficulty in policing green crime
1. Very few local or international laws governing the
state of the enviroment . International laws
difficult to construct because not all countries
agree to sign up to global agreements . For
examples USA & China reluctant to agree to meet
international targets to reduce carbon emissions .
2. Laws that exist are shaped by powerful capitalists
interests , esp global ‘big business’. Gov in
developing countries to question and take action
against transnational corporations because they
are dependant on them for their income . Laws
that do exist to protect enviroment is often weak

6. Sociologial perspectives
Radical criminologist : Rob White•
Green crime should be defined as
‘any action that harms the physical
enviroment and any creatures that
live within it , even if no law has
technically been broken’
•
Current laws are inconsistent as they
often different across countries and
biased as they are influenced by
businesses who have vested interest
in harming the environment for their
own gain because the business
require that

7. Eco-centric vs anthropocentric
view of green crime
Eco-centric
Damage to the
enviroment is damage to
the other species as well
putting human race at risk
in the future
Anthropocentric (this is
the view of big business)
Humans have the right to
exploit the enviroment
and other species for their
own benefit .
White -argues that this capitalist ideology is
responsible for a great deal of enviormental
harm

8. Key study : Nigel South –classifying
green crime
•
Primary crime
•
Direct result of the destruction and
degradation of the planets resources
•
Crimes of air pollution –industrial
carbon and greenhouse gas
emissions
•
Crimes of deforestation-illegal
logging
•
Crimes of species decline and animal
rights
•
Crimes of fresh water abd marine
pollution such as iol spillages
•
Secondary crime
•
Crimes that are a result of flouting
existing laws and regulations
•
Dumping toxic waste-esp developing
world
•
Breach of health and safety rules
causing disaster such as Bhopal
disaster
•
Offloading products such as
pharmaceuticals onto third world
,arkets after they have been banned
on safety grounds in the west

9. Evalaution of green criminology
•
Green criminology recognises the
growing importance of enviromental
issues and manufactured global risks
•
It recognises the interdependence of
humans ,other species and the
enviroment
•
However its focus on harm rather
than criminality means green
criminology is often accused of being
engaged with subjective
intrepetation rather than objective
scientific analysis and is therefore
biased.

10. Examiners notes
in relation to theory and methods
•
Research methods
•
Operationalising means
the measurement of
abstract concpets, Green
crime is easy to measure
because it is legally
defined but harm is more
difficult because it is a
matter of intrepetation
•
Theory
•
It would make sense to
use green crime to
illustrate the crimogenic
nature of capitalism. If an
exam essay title focuses
on Marxist explanation of
crime and deviance

11. Globalisation and crime in
cotemporary society
Human rights and state
crime

12. Defintion of state crime &
examples
•
Illegal activties carried out by the
agents of the state such as armed
services, the secret services ,civil
servants ,the police and prision
services on behalf of the government
and political leaders in the name of
state interests.
•
Genocide ,ethnic cleansing , use of
torture ,assasination of political
opponents ,supporting terrorists
activities against elected governments
and invading less powerful states.

13. Eugene McLaughlin
•
Censorship of the media and institutional racism as state
crimes
•
Herman Schweindinger definitions of state crimes should
include also human rights crime ,violating people’s right
(human rights) should be defined illegal and therefore is
criminal . However his definition is broad .
•
He suggest is some groups are denied same opps as the
majority of the population on the basis of racism,sexism and
homphobia , or if they are economically exploited results in
unequal conditions that are a results of crimes against human
rights

14. George Bush & Tony Blair
‘technically war criminals’
•
USA and UK invaded Iraq to remove Saddam
Hussein from power
•
Some argue this broken international laws as
they have not secured the agreement of the
international community via United Nations
Security

15. Disagreement over what counts as
state crimes
1. state crimes that is carried out by powerful
people or groups who can define their
activities as legitimate , this makes it difficult
to measure the extent of state crime .
2. Gov have the power to cover up such
activities and actually control the flow of
information and esp the media by issuing
legal instructions to prevent journalists for
speaking about state crimes in the ‘public
interest’

16. Continued
•
The powerful can define what counts as crime on
society . What is defined as crime or violence is an
ideological construct. E.g gov can define killing
done by a member of the public as a problem but
this would not apply if it is done by a soldier .
•
This is ideological relativity –gov can decide who is
defined as terrorists or freedom fighter and what
counts as war crimes. E.g Holocaust =war crime but
dropping atom bomb in Japanese cities Hiroshima
and Nagasaki by the West is seen as necessary

17. Continued: Cohen
•
cohen critical of Schwendinger that state
crime should include violating human
rights
•
Genocide and torture are clearly crimes
but economic exploitation is not clearly
criminal but is morally unacceptable .
•
There is not enough agreement over
what makes up human rights . For
example most people would accept that
freedom should be a human right but
not everyone would agree that freedom
from poverty is a right
•
Difficult to find out extent of state crime
because of governments denial of their
actions or justifying their actions to cover up
their illegal acts .
•
E.g national interest
•
Those who carry out acts on behalf of gov do
not see themsleves as criminal they use
techniques of neutralization to deny or justify
crimes .
1. deny their victims by labelling them as
terrotists or extremists
2. They deny injury or damage by saying the
other side started it
3. deny responsibility by saying they were
simply following orders or doing their duty

18. Cohen criticises Schwendinger
•
Immorality is being
confused with
criminality
•
He is taking a high
moral value position
attempting to
impose this view in
the world of
criminology
•
Links to whether
sociology should be
objective or
subjective
•
Schwendinger is
clearly in the other
camp

19. Kelman and Hamilton –’crimes of
obedience’
•
Socialised into believing
it is their duty to obey
and that their
behaviour is acceptable
and necessary because
enemies are animals
and monsters to which
normal rule of morality
does not apply
•
Critics of the concept of state
crimes argue that the so called
criminality of state crime is
outweighed by the fact that the
act was committed in the name
of national interests
•
E.g necessary to go beyond law in
defeating terrorism so
assasination and torture are
‘necessary evils

20. Examiners comments
theory and methods
•
Methods
•
Difficult to research
state crime we
consider docs hiding
conventional crimes-
dark figure of crime
but this is even
harder and acts as
the “true” dark
figure of crime
•
The is a new area
and still evolving . It
is important to be
evaluative you may
have noctied how
the study of state
crime is relant on
secondary sources
be aware of the
strenghts and
weaknesses of these.