Create a power point presentation identifying the main themes and claims in each of this week’s course materials as if you were teaching the class.
here are thesources. Do not useoutside sources
http://www.critcrim.org/redfeather/crime/011white.html
http://www.acfe.com/press-release.aspx?id=4294968561
http://www.critcrim.org/redfeather/crime/014rich.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/corporate-crime
https://watchdocumentaries.com/kids-for-cash/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/american-weapons-manufacturers-thriving-even-as-us-economy-suffers/267510/?fbclid=IwAR0P2fo9fvRKGP2iWtTAxyXXCdbvbOhmCn1JoRlazBTCqrWZHHnUtHJjG-E
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/
Rethinking the Criminology of Crimes of States: Monumental, Mundane, Mislabeled and Miscalculated Crimes www.crimejusticejournal.comIJCJ&SD20154(4):106‐119 ISSN2202–8005 ©TheAuthor(s)2015 RethinkingtheCriminologyofCrimesofStates:Monumental, Mundane,MislabeledandMiscalculatedCrimes DavidOFriedrichs UniversityofScranton,USA Abstract Thisarticleprovidesareflexiveaccountoncriminologicalengagementwithcrimesofstates, with special attention to the case of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, and Berlin and Germanytoday.Theemergenceofacriminologyofcrimesofstatesisreviewed,alongwith arguments for and against criminological engagement with such crime. In particular, a responsetoCarrierandPark’s(2013)critiqueof‘entrepreneurialcriminology’isprovidedin thiscontext.Distinctionsaredrawnbetweenmonumentalandmundanecrimesofstates,and mislabeled and miscalculated crimes of states, with special attention to mundane and miscalculatedcrimes.Abriefconcludingsectionidentifiessomeissuesthatmightbeincluded inanagendaforacriminologyofcrimesofstates,goingforward. Keywords Crimesofstates;entrepreneurialcriminology;mundanecrimes. Dedication ThisarticleisdedicatedtothememoryofWilliamJChambliss,whodiedin2014,andAKathryn (Kate) Stout,whodied in2015.Over aperiodof some fifty yearsBillwasa leading figure in conflictandradicalcriminologyandtheauthorofcountlesslandmarkbooksandarticlesinthe field. He is remembered fondly for his personal warmth, his convivial company, and his inspiring leadership in criminological engagement with the core issues of crime, justice and socialdemocracy.Kate completedaPhDdissertationon the sanctuarymovementwithBill at theUniversityofDelawareandco‐editedananthologyonsocialproblems,lawandsocietywith him and RA Dello Buono. Over the course of more than thirty years Kate taught at various collegesanduniversities.Sheisrememberedfondlyforhersparklingpersonality,herlivelywit, and her passionate pedagogical engagement with the core issues of crime, justice and social democracy. Criminologyandcrimesofstates:Areflexiveaccount Thequestionofwhycriminologistschoosetoadoptaparticularspecializedfocusinthefieldhas always seemed interesting to me. In many cases, surely, this specialized focus reflects the influence of a keymentoror a course taken that greatly engagedone’s attention. Itmay also DavidOFriedrichs:RethinkingtheCriminologyofCrimesofStates IJCJ&SD107 Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com ©20154(4) reflect pragmatic or strategic assessments ofwhat kind of specialized focus ismost likely to maximize job opportunities and advancement, and is most likely to receive grant‐related funding. For some, serendipitous circumstances may be critical: for example, an unexpected invitationtojoinaprojectthatthenleadstoaspecializedfocus.Somethirty‐fiveyearsago,atan Urban Crime Conference in Philadelphia, I presented a paper (subsequently published) ‘The Problem of Reconciling Divergent Perspectives on Urban Crime: Personal Experience, Social IdeologyandScholarlyResearch’(Friedrichs1981).Iproposedthatwecomeatcriminological topicsexperientiallyandideologically,priortoencounteringascholarlyliteratureoncrimeand itscontrol.Morespecifically,bothourperspectiveonand interest inparticularcriminological topics can be shaped by direct experience (for example, as a victim of a particular form of crime),aswellasvicariousexperience(thatis,theexperienceoffamilymembersorfriends,and thenthepervasiveexposuretorepresentationsofcrimeanditscontrolinthemedia). Wealsobringideologytoourstudyofcrime:forexample,religiousbeliefs(ornon‐beliefs)and political convictions (or an apolitical orientation). When we first encounter the scholarly literatureoncrimeanditscontrolweare likelytoengagewith it throughanexperientialand ideologicalprism,andthisprisminturnisquitelikelytoinfluencethechoicesofwhichpartsof the vast criminological scholarly literature one chooses to engagewith. However, one of the themes of my original paper (and article) on this topic is this: we cannot always so easily reconcile howwe come at a criminological topic in terms of an experiential, ideological, and scholarlyengagementwithit. Theverywaythatcrimeislegallydefinedhasdisproportionatelydirectedpeople’sattentionto crimes of the powerless, as opposed to crimes of the powerful, and this disproportionate attentionremainsreflectedwithinthedisciplineofcriminologyitself(Friedrichs2015).Myown original criminological focus was on juvenile delinquents, who exemplify crimes of the powerless. The first criminology course I took as an undergraduate, in 1964, was Juvenile Delinquency. I spent the summers of 1965 and 1967working in a famous reform school for juvenile delinquents, Warwick State Training School in Orange County, New York. My first attemptataMaster’sthesiscomparedboyswho‘breezed’(ranaway)fromthetrainingschool withthosewhodidnot,onanumberofdifferentvariables. But I regard the period between 1964 and 1974 as the formative period inmy identity and orientation as a criminologist, and various experiences during this period led to a shift of interest from the crimes of the powerless to the crimes of the powerful. In October, 1964, I participatedintheFreedomVoteinGreenville,Mississippi,anunforgettableexperienceforme. IrecalldistinctlytheepiphanyIhadtravelingfromJackson,Mississippi,toGreenville, inacar withaCalifornialicenseplate,filledwithwhiteandblackcivilrightsworkers,andexperiencing a sense of fear when we encountered a state police car. The bodies of the three civil rights workerskilledinMississippihadbeenfoundonlytwomonthsearlier;itwaswell‐knownwithin thecivilrightscommunitythatwhiteMississippienforcementofficershadparticipatedinthese murders.AsawhiteNorthernerandresidentofanuppermiddleclassneighborhood,Ihaduntil then the typical view of my peers: that is, as long as I was complying with the law, the (predominantlywhite) policewould leavemealone.Buthere inMississippi I had to fear the policedespitenotviolatingany laws.Andof course thewhole situation inMississippiat that time–whereIwitnessedthevestigesof formalsegregation(‘ColoredWaitingRoom’)andthe systemicdisenfranchisementofblackcitizensofthestate,whomadeupover40percentofthe populationbutonly about2per cent of thevoters – impressedonme the significanceof the crimes committed by white‐controlled states against African‐Americans through the perpetuationofaJimCrowregimeofsystemicoppressionanddenialofbasichumanrights. Thenthefollowingyear,in1965,Iparticipatedforthefirsttimeinoneoftheanti‐VietnamWar marches,thefirstofmanysuchdemonstrationsinto1973.By1965Ihadcometotheconclusion that theAmericanpursuitofwar inVietnamwasa fundamentallycriminalenterprise,aview DavidOFriedrichs:RethinkingtheCriminologyofCrimesofStates IJCJ&SD108 Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com ©20154(4) thatmanyotherAmericanshadadoptedbythattime,andthatIhaveneverhadanyreasonto abandon in thehalf century since that time.Here againwasapotent lesson that someof the mostconsequentialcrimesarecarriedoutbythepoliticalandmilitaryleadership,inthename ofthecountryasawhole. In 1966 I walked out of my New York University commencement, along with many fellow studentsandsomeprofessors,whenwe learned thatRobertMcNamara,SecretaryofDefense and one of the primary architects of the Vietnam War, would be receiving an honorary doctorate. McNamara (1995), in thememoir he published near the end of his life, famously conceded‘Wewerewrong,’buteventhoughheacknowledgesheknewthisbythemid‐1960she certainlydidn’tmakeanypublicdeclarationstothateffectatthattime.Andinrelationtomajor politicaldevelopments,ofcoursetheperiod1972‐1974waswitnesstotheunfoldingdramaof the Watergate Affair, leading to the only resignation of an American President to date. The WatergateAffair,whichIfollowedwithavidinterest,wasanotherpotentlessoninthebreadth andsignificanceofcrimescarriedoutbyandonbehalfofthemostpowerfulAmerican,atthat time,theleaderofthe‘FreeWorld.’IrecallmarchingatPresidentNixon’ssecondinauguration in1973carryingasignsaying‘Indict,don’tInaugurate.’ There were other personal experiences as well as developments in the larger society that contributedtoanincreasingconsciousnessofcrimesofthepowerful,inrelationtocrimesofthe powerless.As iswell‐known, ‘TheSixties’–especially theperiod fromthe late1960s into the early1970s–wascharacterizedbytheincreasingvisibilityofradicalandneo‐Marxistcritiques oftheestablishedorder.ItwasalsoaperiodwhenotherforcesinAmericansociety–including the relative prosperity and economic growth of this period – were giving rise to expanding concernaboutpracticesandpoliciesofpowerful corporationsthat impactedonthequalityof life–andinsomecases,lifeitself.SoanemergingConsumerMovement(spurredespeciallyby theinitiativesofRalphNader)andanEnvironmentalMovementalsoreinforcedthethemethat muchsignificantharmemanatesfromthepowerful,notthepowerless.Altogether,aconfluence of circumstances in American society promoted growing recognition of crimes of states and crimesofcorporations. Crimesofstatesandthesingularcaseofpost‐WorldWarIIGermany I accepted an invitation to participate in a State CrimeWorkshop at the Freie Universitat in BerlininFebruary,2015,inpartduetotheirresistibleopportunitytoexplorecrimesofstatesin thecapitalwhereoneofhistory’smostfamous–perhapsthemostfamous–crimeofstatewas planned,inacountryfromwhichmyownparentsfledinthelate1930sasrefugeesfromNazi Germany.Itisnowquitewell‐known,andmanybookshaveexploredthetopic,thatforseveral decadesfollowingtheendofWorldWarIIGermanyandtheGermanpeoplewere largely ina stateofdenialabout their responsibility for themonumental crimes thatoccurredduring the Naziera.ManyGermansrejectedthelegitimacyoftheNurembergtrials,seeingthemprincipally as instances of victor’s justice. Large numbers of former Nazis were re‐absorbed into the Germanpoliticalsystemaswellasthejudiciary.Andthenofcoursewehavethesystemicpost‐ WorldWar IIcrimescommitted inEastGermany,with the infamousStasi secretpoliceat the centerofthis.Butsincethelate1970sinparticular,Germanyhascollectivelyacknowledgedand commemoratedtheHolocaustandthemonumentalcrimesoftheNazis.AviPrimor,theformer Israeli Ambassador to Germany, at an event commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz, in Erfurt,Germany,onJanuary25,2008,observed:‘Whereintheworldhasoneeverseenanation thaterectsmemorialstoimmortalizeitsownshame?OnlytheGermanshadthebraveryandthe humility’(inKulish2008:A1). WhileinBerlinfortheStateCrimeWorkshopattheFreieUniversitat,duringtheweekof9‐13 February,IvisitedtheMemorialtotheMurderedJewsofEurope–intheheartofthecity–and the Topography of Terror Museum, focused on the perpetrators, just two such sites DavidOFriedrichs:RethinkingtheCriminologyofCrimesofStates IJCJ&SD109 Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com ©20154(4) acknowledgingthecrimesoftheNazis.TheGermanyoftodaymayberesentedandenviedby some–currently,forexample,bymanyGreeksduetoitsroleinimposingausteritypoliciesin Greece – and issues have arisen as they have in many countries about its treatment of immigrants,butitisnotgenerallyviewedasacriminalstate.Indeed,weareconfrontedwitha tragic paradox in the wake of World War II. Nazi Germany is widely regarded as history’s paradigmaticcaseofacriminalstate.ButsinceWorldWarIImanyothercountries–including theUnitedStates–havebeenfarmorecomplicitincrimesofstates,byanymeasure,thanhas beenthecaseofGermany(or,through1989,whatwasWestGermany).Andthenwehavethe caseofIsrael,whichcameintobeingduetotheHolocaust.Itseemsindisputablethatfarmore peopleintheworldtoday–millions,surely–regardIsraelasacriminalstate,howeverunfair thischaracterizationmaybe.ThisisespeciallytrueinthewakeofrecentIsraeliactionsinGaza, andisreflectedinadisturbingworldwideresurgenceofanti‐Semitism. Berlin inFebruary,2015–almostseventyyearsafter thefallofNaziGermanyandtheendof WorldWarII–wasanespeciallyappropriatesettingforaStateCrimeWorkshop.Thecitywas attheheartoftheNazicriminalstate,andhasbeenformorethantwentyyearsthecapitalofa countrythathasdramaticallyrepudiatedthiscriminalenterprise.Berlin,then,isanappropriate setting for exploring the emergence of state crime and mass political violence. It is also an appropriatesettingforexploringthetransitiontoapost‐statecrimesociety.Ideally–without suggestingthatGermanyissomesortof idealmodernstateorsociety–itseemsmuchcanbe learnedfromGermany’sbasicallyredemptivecourseinthewakeoftheThirdReichera. Acriminologyofcrimesofstates:Itsoriginsandcurrentstatus Within criminology as a whole, even today, a criminology of crimes of states is a marginal enterprise. Iwill here invokemy ‘inverse hypothesis’ of criminological concerns: the level of attentionaccordedbycriminologytoaformofcrimevariesinverselywiththedegreeofharm caused by the form of crime. Yes, this claim is somewhat exaggerated, but I believe the core substanceofitiscorrect.Andformostofitshistoryacriminologyofcrimesofstateshasbeena wholly invisible phenomenon. A French judge, Louis Proal (1898) produced a book,Political Crime,thatdrewattentiontothecrimesofthepoliticalleadershipclass,butthisbook–despite being published in English in a series that included a work of Cesare Lombroso’s – had no identifiableimpactonthefieldofcriminologythroughthecourseofthetwentiethcentury.We can find some other instances of prominent American criminologists – for example Sheldon GlueckandDonaldTaft–whopublishedoninternationalcriminaljusticeandcrimesofwar,in the period immediately following World War II, but again this work had no measurable influence on criminology as a field of study in the decades that followed (Friedrichs 2010). Thesecriminologistsmightbecharacterizedasprogenitorsofacriminologyofcrimesofstates. Thenwehaveasmallnumberofcriminologistsinthe1970sand1980s–principallyassociated withconflict, radicalorcriticalcriminology–whoproducedworkthat laida foundationfora criminologyofcrimesofstates.ThesecriminologistsincludedHermanSchwendingerandJulia Schwendinger (1970) in their call for a reconceptualization of crime in terms of identifiable harm,AustinTurk(1982)on‘politicalpolicing,’andStanleyCohen(2001)onacriminologyof human rights violations and on ‘states of denial.’ However, I regard William J Chambliss’s (1989) American Society of Criminology Presidential Address of 1988, on ‘state‐organized crime’,as thebasicseminalcontributionestablishingacontemporarycriminologyof statesof crime.Chambliss,aswellasStanleyCohen,AustinTurkanda fewothers,arethenpartofthe firstgenerationofcriminologistsofstatecrime; theywerebornbetweentheearly1930sand early 1940s. Some critical criminologists born largely between the mid‐1940s and the mid‐ 1950s,whotookupattentiontocrimesofstatesfromthelatter1980sforward,andwhowere either students of or were importantly influenced by the first generation of state crime criminologists, include Gregg Barak, Peter Iadicola, Ronald Kramer, Raymond Michalowski, WayneMorrison, JeffreyRossandmyself.GreggBarak’s (1991)Crimeby theCapitalistState , DavidOFriedrichs:RethinkingtheCriminologyofCrimesofStates IJCJ&SD110 Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com ©20154(4) Jeffrey IanRoss’s (1995)ControllingStateCrimeandDavid Friedrichs’s (1998)StateCrime– Volumes I & II, were three initiatives by criminologists of this generation, in the 1990s, to produceanthologiesonstatecrime. Some mainstream criminologists, roughly part of this generational cohort, began to take up significantattentiontocrimesofstatesinthenewcentury,includingAugustineBrannigan,John HaganandJoachimSavelsberg.Inthefirstdecadeofthenewcenturytwosignificantattemptsto map the terrain of a criminology of crimes of stateswere published: Penny Green and Tony Ward’s (2004)StateCrimeandDawnLRothe’s (2009)StateCriminality.Thesecriminologists havebeenactivecontributors to thecriminologyofstatecrime literature.Wealsohavesome significant anthologies published during this period, including William Chambliss, Raymond MichalowskiandRonaldCKramer’s(2010)StateCrime intheGlobalAge,AletteSmeulersand RoelofHaveman’s(2008)SupranationalCriminologyandDawnRotheandChristopherMullins’s (2011)StateCrime:CurrentPerspectives.Themostrecentanthologyisfourvolumes:WilliamJ ChamblissandChristopherMoloney’s(2015)StateCrime. Altogether,wenowhavewhatmightbecharacterizedasathirdgeneration(limitingthislisting to Americans only), a rapidly expanding group of younger criminologists (born after 1960), somebeingformerstudentsofthesecondgeneration(especiallyofRonKramer)thatincludes butishardlylimitedtoDavidKauzlarich,DawnRothe,RickMatthews,AlexAlvarez,Christopher Mullins, Emily Lenning, Victoria Collins, Elizabeth Bradshaw, and many others. Two criminological journals –WarCrimes,Genocide&CrimesAgainstHumanityand StateCrime – now focus on crimes of states, and state crime scholarship is increasingly beingpublished in suchjournalsasSocial Justice,Crime,Law&SocialChange,CriticalCriminologyandtheBritish JournalofCriminology.Twoconsortiumshavebeenestablished–onebasedatKing’sCollegein London and one based at Old Dominican University in Norfolk. A newsletter, Criminology& InternationalCrimes,publishedatVU(VreiUnivesitat inAmsterdam)appearsquite regularly. Symposiaandworkshopshavebeenheldinincreasingnumber,especiallysince2006.Sessions devotedtocrimesofstatesarearegularpartofthecriminologyconferences,includingawell‐ attended, annual State Crime Roundtable at the American Society of Criminology meeting. Altogether,wearenowseeingaproliferationofbooks,articlesandconferencepapersfocusing onvariousdimensionsofcrimesofstates.Andacriminologyofcrimesofstatesisincreasingly acknowledgedincriminologytextbooks.Insum,inthemiddleoftheseconddecadeofthenew century, a criminology of crimes of states is a well‐established, if still somewhat marginal, specializedareaofinquirywithincriminology. Argumentsforandagainstcriminologicalengagementwithcrimesofstates The greatmajorityof criminologistsdonot criticizea criminologyof crimesof states; rather, they simply ignore this strainof criminological inquiry.The implicit if not explicit critique of such criminological inquiry presumably encompasses the following considerations: No one could seriously deny that vast harms have been perpetrated in the name of states, but such harmisinthedomainofinternationallaw,internationalrelations,andpoliticalscience,andis notusefullycharacterizedasacriminologicalphenomenon.Norisitdeniedthattheterm‘crime’ has been applied to at least somemanifestations of such harm, but criminological inquiry is most appropriately and most fruitfully restricted to conventional violations of criminal law. Criminologicaltheoriesandmethodsweredevelopedtoexplainandinvestigatesuchcrime,not crimes of states. Criminologists have more than enough to occupy themselves with the examination of conventional crime and the criminal justice system response to such crime withoutengagingwiththehugelycomplexissuesgeneratedbycrimesofstates.Criminologists are most likely to have some influence on public policy to the extent that they restrict themselvestotheconventionalformsofcrimeandthecontrolofsuchcrime. DavidOFriedrichs:RethinkingtheCriminologyofCrimesofStates IJCJ&SD111 Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com ©20154(4) Theprincipalexplicitorimplicitargumentsinfavorofacriminologyofstatecrimesencompass thefollowinggeneralthemes.First,thecrimesofstatesarebyanyreasonablemeasurethemost consequentialofallcrimes–the ‘crimeofcrimes’–andit is inherentlyabsurdforthefieldof criminology to fail to attend to such crimes. Second, criminologists, with their thorough familiaritywiththeissuesrelatingtoconceptualizingcrimeanditscontrolaswellaswhathas beenlearnedaboutsuchcrimeanditscontrol,shouldhavesomethingofvaluetocontributeto theunderstandingofcrimesofstatesandthecontrolofsuchcrime.Withregardtoconventional crimeanditscontrolwemaywellhaveembarkedonaneraofdiminishingreturns,inthesense thattheseformsofcrimeandsocialcontrolhavenowbeensothoroughlystudiedthatitisfar fromclear that further studycangreatlyadvanceourunderstanding in this realm,and in the caseofconventionalcrimeitisasubstantiallydiminishedsocialproblemrelativetowhatwas the case in anearlier time.Any impactofmainstreamcriminological researchon the societal responsetocrimehasbeenlargelytrumpedbypoliticalconsiderations. Third,acriminologyofcrimesofstatesideallycanbepartofacriticalmassofinterdisciplinary scholarship on such crime and at least in some circumstances could contribute to broader cultural awarenessofandeffectivepreventive social actionstrategies in relation to crimesof states.Finallyandaboveall,whatisatstakeinunderstandingandatleastconstraining–ifnot obliterating–crimesofstatesissohugelyconsequentialthatwearemorallyobligedtoengage fullywiththechallengesofunderstandingandrespondingmoreeffectivelytothethreatofsuch crimes,howeverchallengingthatmaybe. Respondingtoacritiqueof‘entrepreneurialcriminology’ Two Canadian criminologists, Nicholas Carrier and Augustine SJ Park (2013), have now produced a critique of the criminology of crimes of states, which they characterize as ‘an entrepreneurialcriminologyofmasspoliticalviolence’.Sincethisisarelativelyrareinstanceof a full‐fledged critical engagement with this emerging enterprise it seems worthy of some attention,especiallyasinmyviewitwhollymisrepresentsthecorethemesandanalyticalthrust of thisenterprise.CarrierandPark (2013:298)beginwith theassertion thatentrepreneurial criminologyclaimsa‘singularmastery’ofmasspoliticalviolence.Butwhomakessuchaclaim? Inmyreadingthosewhoengage in thisendeavorseektogainrecognitionthatcriminological analysiscanlegitimatelycontributetoaninterdisciplinaryendeavoroncrimesofmasspolitical violence.Theclaimthatentrepreneurialcriminologyattemptstoreducethecomplexityofsuch violence seems equally misplaced in my view. Rather, it seeks to graft a criminological dimensionontotheanalysisofanundeniablyandendlesslycomplexphenomenon.Theclaimis thenmade that entrepreneurial criminologists don’t differentiate between theHolocaust and whitecollarcrime.Totheextentthatsuchcriminologistsaddressbothtopics,itwouldbegood to know where this might be so. I have specifically addressed the fundamental differences between thecrimesof theNazisand thecrimesof corporations(Friedrichs1996).Andwhile thedifferencesarepronouncedsomeparalleldimensionsalsorequireourattention. CarrierandPark(2013:306)claimthatentrepreneurialcriminologistsgraftonknowledgeof ordinarycrimetomasspoliticalviolence.Inmyreadingitisfarmoreaccuratetosaythatthey apply that knowledge comparatively. Does entrepreneurial criminology fail to question criminalization, as Carrier and Park (2013: 306) claim? Rather, it seems tome, it challenges orthodox conceptions of criminalization. For Carrier and Park (2013: 309) entrepreneurial criminology reducespolitical actors to ‘mere criminals’ and de‐politicizes political conflict. In my reading what this enterprise actually stresses is that mass political violence should be interpretedasa criminalaswell asapoliticalphenomenon.Apurely ‘political’ interpretation evadesthecriminalityinherentinsuchviolence. Finally,CarrierandPark(2013:310)claimthatanentrepreneurialcriminologycontributesto the perpetuation of a global North hegemony. It is true enough that criminology itself as