Hurricane Katrina Victimization as a State Crime of Omission

Several popular narratives assign responsibility to a host of political officials on the local, state, and federal levels for the excess human suffering stemming from Hurricane Katrina. The three main goals of this article are to (1) summarize these claims and situate them within the burgeoning literature on state crime in criminology, (2) discern what victims of the hurricane subjectively identify as the source(s) of their victimization, and (3) compare the latter and the former in order to demonstrate the appropriateness of conceptualizing the excess suffering of Hurricane Katrina victims as a state crime of omission. We explore these three subjects through documentary analysis and interviews with thirteen victims of Hurricane Katrina. Major findings are that all of the interviewees express profound dissatisfaction with various state actions and inactions before, during, and after Katrina in ways consistent with the documentary and polling data. This constellation of similar claims and evidence along with the obvious social injury caused by multiple state failures provide the basis for conceptualizing governmental negligence in the context of Katrina as a state crime of omission.

---

Post-Hurricane Katrina Racialized Explanations as a System Threat: Implications for Whites’ and Blacks’ Racial Attitudes

This experiment drew upon theoretical perspectives on group and system justification to examine whether exposure to media coverage arguing that racism was responsible for the ineffective Hurricane Katrina disaster response affected White and Black Americans’ intergroup attitudes. Consistent with a system justification perspective, Whites exposed to video clips arguing that the hurricane Katrina disaster response was due to racism displayed greater racial ingroup attachment and ingroup love compared to Whites exposed to videos conveying that the government’s incompetence was to blame for the disaster response. In contrast, Blacks displayed strong levels of ingroup attachment and ingroup love across both video conditions. This research highlights how insights from social psychology are valuable in understanding psychological responses to social justice-related events, such as the tragic response to hurricane Katrina.

Then they came for the dogs!

This paper examines the British state’s desire to liquidate the Pit Bull as a breed. It examines the moral panic that brought the Pit Bull Terrier to public attention and traces the government’s knee-jerk response that resulted in the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991), the legal instrument that mandated Britain’s first attempt at canine genocide. Though public protection was the stated justification of this exercise in state violence, there was and is no evidence to support the case for canine killing through the indiscriminate blanket medium of breed specific legislation. Far from conceiving the dog an aggressor and humans its victims, this paper precedes on the assumption that the dogs are the victims and humans the inhuman aggressor. The paper concludes by examining the factors that provoked the UK’s descent into mass dog killing.     

Talking Heads and Bleeding Hearts: Newsmaking, Emotion and Public Criminology in the Wake of a Sexual Assault

Using our own experiences in attempting to ‘do’ public criminology in the wake of a violent sexual assault on our campus, we offer a critique of the emerging public criminology framework. Focusing specifically on tensions between fact and emotion and representations of expertise in the news media, we argue for a greater respect for emotional responses to crime in moving the public criminology agenda forward. We suggest that if public criminology sets as its goal educating the public about crime with an eye towards injecting a counter/critical discourse into ‘get tough’ crime control policies, then public criminologists need to recognize and take seriously the public’s emotions rather than negate them. Drawing on the work of Ahmed (The cultural politics of emotion. Routledge, London, 2004), we suggest that the role of the expert is not to simply inform citizens of the ‘facts’ about crime, but to establish—through emotions—the relationship between themselves and the imagined criminal Other (Young in Imagining crime: Textual outlaws and criminal conversations. Sage Publications, London, 1996). Thus, alongside trying to convince the public to be more ‘rational’ when it comes to crime, critical criminologists must start to accept people’s fear and anger as legitimate reactions and try to redirect these emotions toward more productive ends.     

Framing innocents: the wrongly convicted as victims of state harm

We adapt the victimology of ‘state harms’ framework outlined by Kauzlarich et al. (Critical Criminology, 10(3), 173–194, 2001) to understand the post-exoneration experiences of 18 death row exonerees. Kauzlarich et al. develop six points of commonality shared by most victims of state crime. Application of this framework to death row exonerees highlights the role the state plays in creating and exacerbating the harms they suffer. This analysis also lays a foundation for further theoretical inquiry into the wrongful conviction of the innocent as a form of state crime.     

That Was Then, This Is Now, What About Tomorrow? Future Directions in State Crime Studies

Research and theorizing on state crime has come to play an important role in the fields of criminology and criminal justice for understanding the worst of crimes: those of powerful state agencies and agents. Since William Chambliss’ (1989) ASC presidential address, scholars of state crime have made advances in theoretical modeling and analyzing core enactment and etiological factors of crimes of the state (e.g., Barak 1991; Friedrichs 1998; Grabosky 1989; Kauzlarich and Kramer 1998; Kramer and Michalowski 2005; Kramer et al. 2005; Michalowski and Kramer 2006; Mullins and Rothe 2008a, b; Pearce 1976; Ross 1995, 2000; Rothe 2009; Rothe and Mullins 2006, 2008). Nonetheless, the study of state crime still has a long way to go before it ever reaches the magnitude or legitimacy afforded to the study of traditional street crime. It is with this in mind that several leading scholars of state criminality have come together and reevaluated the state of state crime and the ways in which the field must move forward. This kind of inventory, where scholars examine the past, present and future of the field, is not without precedent. For example, almost a decade ago (Ross et al. 1999) explored the difficulty of conducting state crime research and made a series of recommendations on how it could be improved. Nearly 7 years later (Rothe and Friedrichs 2006) re-evaluated the state of state crime and called for more attention to those beyond US crimes of the state and include crimes of globalization and also international controls such as the International Criminal Court (Friedrichs and Friedrichs 2007; Rothe and Mullins 2006; Rothe et al. 2006, 2008). Since that time, there has been substantial movement by scholars of state crime in these other areas, yet, as we note, there still remains key issues that need to be addressed and overcome: it is with this that we again revisit the field of state crime. We wish to thank all of those that contributed to our discussions and thoughts during the American Society of Criminology Roundtable on State Crime I and II, November 2007.

---

Re-visiting Mr. Nice. On organized crime as conversational interaction

Studies of organized crime often seem to have focus almost exclusively on its functionality and rationality. Many researchers tend to construct organized crime as an object, and then to find relations between ‘it’ and its environment. The focus then is on organized crime as a goal-driven object. This view holds that success in crime depends on the roles and tasks people assume. It equates success in crime with functional secrecy and obedience, and therefore with stability. Researchers are seldom interested in everyday, informal elements and events such as coincidental encounters that may occur in everyday life, or personal relationships which have no direct connection with criminal activities. Inspired by the work of Watts and Strogatz [84] and Stuart Kauffman [38, 39], this paper attempts to suggest a complementary perspective on organized crime. The focus here is on the messiness and unpredictability of everyday relations and interactions. This paper illustrates the usefulness of this alternative perspective through a re-reading of Howard Marks’ ego-document which was analysed earlier by Carlo Morselli in his work on network dynamics and criminal career opportunities.     

Postdoctoral training,departmental prestige and scientists’ research productivity

An implicit assumption prevailing in the science community is that scientists with postdoctoral training demonstrate a higher rate of productivity than their peers without such experience (Folger et al. in Human resources and higher education. Russell Sage, New York, 1970; NRC in Postdoctoral training in the biomedical sciences. National Academy of Science, Washington DC, 1974; NRC in Research training and career patterns of bioscientists: The training programs of the National Institutes of Health. National Academy of Science, Washington DC, 1976; Reskin in Am Sociol Rev 41(4):597–612, 1976), and especially so if postdocs are employed in research intensive settings (McGinnis et al. in Soc Force 60(3):701–722, 1982; Zumeta in Extending the educational ladder: The changing roles of postdoctoral education in the United States. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va, 1985). In contrast, by exploring the reward structure of the science system, sociologists contend that departments where scientists obtain positions play a substantial role in shaping their research productivity (Long in Am Sociol Rev 43(6):889–908, 1978; Long and McGinnis in Am Sociol Rev, 46(4):422–442, 1981; Allison and Long in Am Sociol Rev, 55(4):469–478, 1990). This study investigates both theories in an attempt to unfold how these factors impact scientists’ research productivity over time. Using curriculum vitae (CV) from a nationally representative sample of academic scientists and engineers, the findings suggest that postdoc training indeed boosts individual research productivity during scientists’ early career periods (the first 3 years after the doctoral degrees), however, the effect fades quickly. While departmental prestige plays a role in scientists’ research productivity, further investigation indicates that only scientists placed in highly prestigious departments demonstrate a consistently higher productivity level than their peers in other departments. Given that postdoc training contributes significantly to the higher likelihood of being placed in highly prestigious departments, postdoctoral training and the subsequent placement in highly prestigious departments together are conducive to the presence of the accumulative advantage effect.     

Lost in Translation: Doing (And Not Doing) Ethnographic Research in Village India

This paper is a reflection on the difficulties of conducting criminological research in rural India. It tells the story of two periods of ethnographic fieldwork (1999 and 2002) conducted in one North Indian village (pseudonym: Nagaria). This article is written in the ‘tales from the field’ narrative tradition, relying primarily on my own fieldwork experience and later reflections, and intentionally making little reference to the methodological literature. Much of the paper - particularly the fieldwork extracts - is written in the ‘ethnographic present’. A dramaturgical approach is adopted (Goffman 1959), with a focus on the ways in which social interaction may be understood as performance. Theatrical terminology is used to underscore the ways in which field relationships may be stage managed. Contrary to conventional notions of the power of the researcher, in this tale from the field it becomes clear that the superior acting skills of gatekeepers and key informants led to the upstaging of this ethnographer.

A General<Emphasis Type="Italic"> Theories</Emphasis> of Hate Crime? Strain,Doing Difference and Self Control

This article attempts to put forward a more holistic vision of hate crime causation by exploring the intersections which exist between three separate criminological theories. Within the extant literature both Robert Merton’s strain theory and Barbara Perry’s structured action theory of ‘doing difference’ have been widely used to explain why prejudice motivated crimes continue to pervade most communities. Together the theories help to illuminate the sociological factors which act to create immense fear of, and hatred towards, various minority identity groups. However, neither of these theories adequately explain why some individuals commit hate crimes while others, equally affected by socio-economic strains and social constructions of ‘difference’, do not. This article therefore moves beyond such macro explanations of hate crime by drawing upon Gottfredson and Hirschi’s A General Theory of Crime (1990). Using typology research carried out by various academics, the article attempts to illustrate how socio-economic strains and general fears of ‘difference’ become mutually reinforcing determinants, promulgating a culture of prejudice against certain ‘others', which in turn ultimately triggers the hate motivated behaviours of individuals with low self control.     

“Fair and Balanced?” Justice Issues on Political Talk Shows

Like their news program predecessors, many political talk shows focus a considerable amount of their coverage on justice issues. Although numerous past studies have examined justice issue presentation in news programs, infotainment, and crime drama, to date only one forthcoming study has examined crime and justice coverage on political talk shows. Political talk shows often present issues in a debate format, as well as emphasize the balanced nature of the content in advertising, with one program even using the slogan “fair and balanced.” Building upon the format of previous media studies, we analyzed a composite month of videotaped footage of three popular political talk shows appearing on cable networks: CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Mathews, and The O’Reilly Factor from the Fox News Channel. Using content analysis techniques, this study examines balance in the form and content of these programs in terms of presentation of justice issues, political party identification of hosts and guests and realistic presentations of race and gender in the context of crime and justice. Results indicate that these programs tend to adopt an advocacy tone rather than an objectivist one. Furthermore, we demonstrate that racial and gender portrayals of crime and justice on these shows are significantly distorted from reality, with a priority afforded to white female victims of violent crime and minority male offenders.     

Interracial contact and fear of crime

Despite a large literature on public views about crime, the racialization of crime, and the contact hypothesis, surprisingly little is known about how interracial friendships may influence Whites’ fear of crime. At the same time, and perhaps because no counterpart stereotype to that of “Blacks as criminals” exists, there has been little exploration of how such contact may influence Blacks’ fear of crime. To address these research gaps, this study built on prior theory and research and used data from an ABC News and Washington Post poll to test competing hypotheses about the effect of interracial contact on Whites’ and Blacks’ fear of crime, respectively. The analyses revealed that close interracial friendships are associated with increased fear of crime among Whites, decreased fear of crime among lower-income Blacks, and increased fear among higher-income Blacks. The implications for theory and research are discussed.     

Drugs Prices and Systemic Violence: An Empirical Study

This study proposes an empirical analysis of the relation between the prices of illegal drugs and the use of violence to administrate the markets of illegal drugs. The study hypothesizes that the prices of illegal drugs affect the level of violent crime, since changes in profitability of the drugs’ markets affect the offenders’ expected utility of using violence to operate in these markets. An increase (or decrease) in prices would raise (or reduce) the offenders’ expected utility of making use of violence, for instance, to solve disputes over drugs, to conquer more market shares, to defend ones own market share, in short to make use of systemic violence (Goldstein, P.J. Journal of Drug Issues, 39:143–179, 1985). The study will analyze the relation between the dynamics of cocaine and heroin’s prices and systemic violence in the United States of America and in Europe over two decades. The correlational and inferential analyses do support the hypothesis for certain offenders’ profiles and certain murders’ circumstances.

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Cultural Criminology: An Invitation</Emphasis>… to What?

Since the mid 1990s, a strand of criminology emerged that is concerned with the co-constitution of crime and culture under the general rubric of ‘cultural criminology’. In the titles Cultural Criminology Unleashed and Cultural Criminology: An Invitation, criminologists spearheading this brand of criminology make claims for its originality and its status as a subversive alternative to conventional criminological approaches to studies of crime and deviance. The basis for the ‘new’ cultural criminology is its ostensible ability to account for the culture and subcultures of crime, the criminalization of cultural and subcultural activities, and the politics of criminalization. This paper offers a comparison of cultural criminology to 1960s and 1970s labeling theory to assess whether or not cultural criminology has developed a grammar of critique capable of resolving fundamental contradictions that haunt critical criminology and contesting contemporary administrative criminology. Points of comparison are made through ontological categories of power and criminal identity and a consideration of the epistemological categories of the respective bodies of literature.     

Contrasting simulated and empirical experiments in crime prevention

This paper argues that simulated experiments of crime prevention interventions are an important class of research methods that compare favorably with empirical experiments. It draws on Popper’s demarcation between science and non-science (Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London, 1992) and Epstein’s principle of generative explanation (Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006) to show how simulated experiments can falsify theory. The paper compares simulated and empirical experiments and shows that simulations have strengths that empirical methods lack, but they also have important relative weaknesses. We identify three threats to internal validity and two forms of external validity peculiar to simulated experiments. The paper also looks at the problem of validating simulations with crime data and suggests that simulations need to mimic the error production processes involved in the creation of empirical data. It concludes by listing ways simulations can be used to improve empirical experiments and discussing the differing operating assumption of empirical and simulation experimentalists.

The Impact of the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 on Anti-Islamic Hate Crime

Abstract

Using existing data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, time series analyses were conducted on hate crime data from 2001 around the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A statistically significant increase in anti-Islamic hate crime occurred after 9/11, and anti-Islamic hate crime leveled off within 8 weeks of the occurrence. News stories reporting anti-Islamic hate crimes, stories reporting fear of such bias crime, and public calls for calm, tolerance, and/or reaction to anti-Islamic bias crime followed a similar pattern found within the official data. A city-by-city analysis found that UCR reported anti-Islamic hate crime was essentially non-existent in New York City and Washington, DC. It is suggested that public calls for calm and tolerance and in-group/out-group dynamics may have impacted anti-Islamic hate crime frequency, thus accounting for rises and reductions in this form of bias crime over time.     

The Brooklyn mediation field test

This paper describes an experiment in which 465 felony arrest cases in Kings County, NY, USA, were, randomly, either filed in court and prosecuted or sent to a dispute resolution center for adjudication. The cases all involved persons who were acquainted, and nearly half were either intimate partners or in other immediate family relationships. The results indicated that the mediation process was perceived more positively by complainants than was prosecution and that going through mediation enhances complainants’ perceptions of their relationships with defendants to a greater degree than going through the court process. However, there was no evidence that mediation was no more effective than prosecution in preventing recidivism. Not surprisingly, in cases involving intimate partners or immediate family members, the offenders were most likely to experience continuing problems whether they were sent to mediation or were prosecuted. One of the values of this study is that, in the late 1970s, when this research was conducted, mediation was considered by many to be a legitimate alternative to prosecution in family violence cases, including cases arising from intimate partner violence. The data that we collected would be difficult to replicate in today’s political climate. While our study did not find that mediation reduced the odds of recidivism in these cases, neither did we find that mediation made victims less safe. Thus, it partially supports the sentiments of researchers such as Braithwaite and Strang (Restorative justice and family violence. In Strang H, Braithwaite J (eds) Restorative justices and family violence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 1−22; 2002), who argue that—given the evidence for success of restorative justice in reducing re-offending in cases other than family violence—it is worth testing whether similar beneficial effects could be found in applying restorative justice approaches to family violence cases.