State crime, human rights and the limits of criminology
Part of a special section on race, class, and state crime. The writers strive to propose how criminology can remedy its neglect of the important phenomenon of state crime without adopting such a broad definition of “crime” as to destroy what coherence criminology has as a distinct field of study. In...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2000
|
| In: |
Social justice
Year: 2000, Volume: 27, Issue: 1, Pages: 101-115 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | Part of a special section on race, class, and state crime. The writers strive to propose how criminology can remedy its neglect of the important phenomenon of state crime without adopting such a broad definition of “crime” as to destroy what coherence criminology has as a distinct field of study. In order to evaluate the universality of their approach, they draw on examples from two different state traditions, Anglo-American and Turkish. They note that their definition permits them to analyze countries as diverse as Turkey and the U.K. from the viewpoint of a continuum rather than as two discrete, incomparable state formations—authoritarian and democratic. They demonstrate how “crime” can be defined independently of the state by using the concepts of human rights and deviance, which can be linked by the concept of legitimacy. |
|---|