Search results

This article provides a reflexive account on criminological engagement with crimes of states, with special attention to the case of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, and Berlin and Germany today. The emergence of a criminology of crimes of states is reviewed, along with arguments for and against criminological engagement with such crime. In particular, a response to Carrier and Park's (2013) critique of 'entrepreneurial criminology' is provided in this context. Distinctions are drawn between monumental and mundane crimes of states, and mislabeled and miscalculated crimes of states, with special attention to mundane and miscalculated crimes. A brief concluding section identifies some issues that might be included in an agenda for a criminology of crimes of states, going forward.

This article provides a reflexive account on criminological engagement with crimes of states, with special attention to the case of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, and Berlin and Germany today. The emergence of a criminology of crimes of states is reviewed, along with arguments for and against criminological engagement with such crime. In particular, a response to Carrier and Park's (2013) critique of 'entrepreneurial criminology' is provided in this context. Distinctions are drawn between monumental and mundane crimes of states, and mislabeled and miscalculated crimes of states, with special attention to mundane and miscalculated crimes. A brief concluding section identifies some issues that might be included in an agenda for a criminology of crimes of states, going forward.

Not applicable

The core purpose of this article is to make a contribution to an ongoing dialogue on the development of a truly influential criminology of crimes of states. It is deliberately interrelated with papers presented by the author at conferences on transnational crime (Prato, 2006), supranational criminology (Maastricht, 2007), social harm and crime (London, 2007), state crime (Onati, 2008), and global criminology in relation to comparative criminology (Utrecht, 2008). Each paper was subsequently published, or is to be published, in special issues of journals or books emanating out of the conferences (Friedrichs, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010a, 2010b). The journal Social Justice, from its inception, has been at the forefront of the endeavor of challenging criminological parochialism. This endeavor has been one of the principal raison d'etres of critical criminology, originally radical criminology. A special issue of Social Justice devoted to "Resisting State Crime" challenges criminological parochialism in multiple ways. Beyond its focus on crimes of states, not on conventional crimes, it also challenges a common premise of mainstream criminology: a stance of dispassionate and disinterested analysis. Is it possible to merely identify empirically the forms of resistance to state crime that appear to be most effective without actively promoting the adoption of such forms of resistance, given what is at stake? The project of 'resisting state crime' generates challenges and conundrums on many different levels. Adapted from the source document.

The article encompasses problems of transnational crimes through the prism of globalization processes of the 21st century. It touches upon criminological parochialism and states of denial; types of criminology such as comparative, transnational, international, global, and also criminal justice; provisional genealogy for a global criminology. The author breaks down crimes by governmental, white-collar, state-corporate, finance and crimes of globalization where he believes a financial crime is the most crucial and the least researched and needs to be thoroughly examined. The chapter goes in depth with definitions like sovereignty, nationalism, and legitimacy as vital entities in global criminology. The conclusion is as follows: the world needs to dedicate more attention to global crimes as a main topic of international law and comparative politics. L. Babiasz

A review essay on books by (1) Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon, 1998); & (2) Aryeh Neier, War Crimes: Brutality, Genocide, Terror, and the Struggle for Justice (New York: Random House, 1998). Whether the 20th century will be seen as a horrific, violent era full of conflict, or as a time replete with omens for coming peace, is considered in light of these works. Minow examines the mechanisms of both vengeance & forgiveness in the 20th century, concluding that while it is not known how to deter genocide & violence, improved strategies for reintegration can be found. Neier focuses on different circumstances of transitional justice in the 20th century & recommends that new approaches for responding to genocide & war crimes be established. The two books are deemed complementary. D. Weibel