Controlling state crime and alternative reactions

Abstract

Since its original conceptualization by scholars such as Chambliss (1989), and with modifications by a handful of researchers (e.g., Barak, 1991a; Ross, 2000a, 2000b; Green and Ward, 2004; Rothe, 2009a, 2009b), a significant amount of research has been produced in the field of state crime.Both activists and researchers know that the state can be challenged and changed, and there are numerous ways to control state crimes. The state is subject to scrutiny, change and reform not only from inside its agencies but also from outside. And on rare occasions, due to numerous factors, the government and its respective bureaucracies changes its harmful policies and practices because of different kinds of pressure (Ross, 1995/2000; 2000a, 2010).But controlling state crimes is not easy. Indeed, there is a range of reactions to state crime, from public apathy (Cohen, 2001), to efforts to prevent, challenge, redress, and/or to the abolishment/dismantling of the state (Martin, 1995/2000). Each response uses different resources (i.e., actors, expertise, and experience), and these may be used (successfully or unsuccessfully) under different conditions.In an attempt to better contextualize the notion of control of the state, this chapter outlines the traditional types of internal and external control mechanisms. It then examines alternative reactions to these controls and the state's responses to those controls, which include victim, activist and opposition group resistance, apathy, state/organizational resistance to control and state/organizational public relations efforts.