Ironies of controlling state crime

Ross, Jeffrey Ian; Rothe, Dawn L.

doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2008.06.001

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The external controls lie outside of the state apparatus of the state in question and the control that they exercise is imposed on the state [43]. Internal controls have been criticized because they tend to protect the interests of the government rather than those of the individual [41].…”

Section: Formal and Informal Bodies Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state’s mishandling of immigration to Sweden – how bodies controlling the state frame the problem

Schoultz

2016

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Formal and Informal Bodies Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state’s mishandling of immigration to Sweden – how bodies controlling the state frame the problem

Schoultz

2016

Crime Law Soc Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Yet, as scholars of state crime have noted, many of the revelations of government crime and corruption that are brought to public attention are not revealed through mechanisms built into the structure of the government. Whistleblowers have used various means to disseminate documentation of such criminality, most notably, via the media, thus spreading the information to the general public through the front pages of newspapers to the Internet including social-networking sites (Ross & Rothe, 2008;Sagar, 2007;Steinmetz, 2012). Consider that leaks have provided details on state crimes and political corruption including The Pentagon Papers scandal, the uncovering of detainee abuse, illegal use of wiretaps, the practice of extraordinary renditions, political killings, assassinations, et cetera.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, the process of control can be interpreted as a reaction to a threat to an agency's, organization's, or country's power, survival, and autonomy. Thus, exposure of state criminality is rarely welcomed by those in power and is often countered through a variety of legal or illegal mechanisms at the state's disposal (Ross & Rothe, 2008). Turk (1985), for example, outlined a series of state reactions against individuals and organizations that the state perceives as threatening to its stability: intelligence gathering, information control, and neutralization, as well as specific and general deterrence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…State agency's responses included: eavesdropping, bogus mail, black propaganda operations, disinformation or gray propaganda, harassment arrests, use of infiltrators and agents provocateurs, pseudo-gangs, black jacketing, fabrication of evidence, and even assassinations. More recently, Ross and Rothe (2008) proposed a continuum to explain the irony of controlling state crime and provided a model for contextualizing states' reactions to disclosure of their criminality and responses to whistleblowers: (1) censure, (2) scapegoating or obfuscation, (3) retaliation, (4) defiance/resistance, (5) plausible deniability or improving the agency's ability to hide and/or explain away crimes, (6) relying on self-righteousness, (7) redirection/misdirection, and (8) fear mongering. Ross and Rothe suggest that once a state crime is pursued and/or enacted there may be an attempt to control the act and/or thwart ongoing efforts by the state to engage in criminal activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The case of Bradley Manning: state victimization, realpolitik and WikiLeaks

Rothe

Steinmetz

2013

Contemporary Justice Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the case of WikiLeaks release of classified documents and its founder, Julian Assange, has garnered much popular attention, the formal social control reactions to the alleged involvement of Private First Class Bradley Manning has remained, relatively glaringly absent from the media, public and political discussions. Moreover, while scant criminological attention has been given to the extradition of Assange on sexual charges and the situation of WikiLeaks, there has been no analysis of the control mechanisms that were placed on Manning in an effort to cease the release of US documents and his activity as a whistleblower. This examination fills this void by adding to the literature on states' responses to whistle-blowers by highlighting states' mechanisms including retaliation and redirection to obscure its criminality as well the theoretical framework of realpolitik. While realpolitik has been used previously to explain motivations for state crime, it has not been applied as an explanation for the implementation of controls. Not only is the preservation of state legitimacy and practices of realpolitik central to the reactions of the government to this case of whistleblowing, but that the responses denied a presumption of innocence and have violated basic human rights tenants, the Uniform Code of Justice, the US Constitution, thus making this a case of state victimization.

show abstract

“…The extant research on state crime control 1 has shown that impunity has been a hindrance to accountability and initiation of post-conflict modalities of justice, both of which are necessary for sustainable peace and redress for victims of crimes of the state [24,27,28,29,30,35,36,33]. Nonetheless, at the domestic level, heads of state and other high ranking officials usually take measures to ensure domestic impunity, thus negating any to all internal control mechanisms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shedding the blanket of immunity: a commentary on the global principle of ending impunity, realpolitik, and legal precedent

Rothe

2010

Crime Law Soc Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the course of the past two decades, there have been attempts by governments and the international political community to limit the scope of immunity granted to heads of states. Nevertheless in recent years we have witnessed former heads of state being brought to justice through ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the permanent International Criminal Court. Yet, head of state immunity remains one of the leading points of contention in international law. The issue is further compounded with the multiplicity of national systems that fall short of their duty to prosecute foreign heads of state if they have committed heinous crimes, those considered jus cogens which constitute peremptory norms. As such, there is a need to examine immunity from prosecution by another state separately from immunity from an international tribunal and/or court. This is especially the case given the problems of initiating ad hoc tribunals and the limited abilities of the ICC, highlighting the need to ensure cooperation of states' willingness and ability to prosecute. In doing so, I draw from the infamous case of former President of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, and subsequent attempts by national systems to hold accountable foreign heads of state. I conclude by suggesting that the optimism for ending impunity is not only premature, but misguided given the realpolitik surrounding national progression for ending head of state immunity and ensuring their legal obligations to prosecute.Enhancing accountability and minimizing impunity are important elements for peace and stability and for building democratic states in the wake of conflict [6: 6].

show abstract

Ironies of controlling state crime

Cited by 18 publications

References 14 publications

The state’s mishandling of immigration to Sweden – how bodies controlling the state frame the problem

The state’s mishandling of immigration to Sweden – how bodies controlling the state frame the problem

The case of Bradley Manning: state victimization, realpolitik and WikiLeaks

Shedding the blanket of immunity: a commentary on the global principle of ending impunity, realpolitik, and legal precedent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About