4.3.1 - Green Crime, Human Rights, and State Crimes
This lesson examines crimes and harms committed by the most powerful actors in society. Instead of focusing only on street crime, sociology asks how environmental destruction, human rights abuses, and state violence are defined, hidden, and justified. That matters in the exam because it gives you strong concepts, clear applications and sharp evaluation about power, inequality and accountability.
Rethinking crime and harm
One of the biggest sociological questions in this topic is whether crime should be limited to acts that break the law. A legal definition sounds simple, but it creates a major problem: the most powerful actors often help shape the law itself. If states and corporations can influence what is criminalised, some of the most damaging acts in society may remain legal while still causing enormous harm.
Green criminology
The sociological study of environmental harms and crimes, including harms that may be legal but still damage humans, ecosystems, and non-human species.
Green criminology therefore moves beyond a narrow focus on offences already recognised by criminal law. It asks who is harmed, who benefits, and why some harms are treated as normal economic activity rather than crime.
Rob White argues for a transgressive, ecocentric approach. "Transgressive" means crossing the boundary of legal definitions and looking at all serious environmental harms. "Ecocentric" means placing the environment itself, not only human convenience, at the centre of analysis. This challenges an anthropocentric view in which environmental damage matters only when it immediately harms humans.
Transgressive approach
An approach that treats environmental harm as criminologically important whether or not the law currently defines it as a crime.
This is why green criminologists are interested in activities such as large-scale pollution, deforestation, and ecosystem destruction even when governments have licensed or tolerated them. Sociology is not just asking, "Was a law broken?" It is asking, "Whose interests does the law protect, and whose harms does it ignore?"
Ulrich Beck helps explain why this issue became more important in late modern societies. He argued that advanced societies increasingly produce manufactured risks such as toxic pollution and environmental catastrophe. That insight fits green criminology because it shows how modern economic development can create harms on a global scale.
Types and patterns of green crime
Nigel South gives this topic a clear structure by distinguishing between primary and secondary green crimes. This is useful in exams because it lets you classify examples quickly and show that environmental harm takes more than one form.
| Type | What it means | Typical examples |
|---|---|---|
| Primary green crimes | Direct environmental destruction and harm | Air pollution, deforestation, species decline, water pollution |
| Secondary green crimes | Crimes that arise from breaking or evading environmental rules, or from conflict around environmental regulation | Illegal waste dumping, trafficking in endangered species, illegal fishing, violence against environmental activists |
The categories can overlap: illegal dumping directly damages an ecosystem and also evades environmental controls. South's typology of primary green crime highlights four especially important areas. Crimes of air pollution include emissions from industry, transport, and fossil fuel use. Crimes of deforestation include illegal logging and the destruction of forests for commercial agriculture. Crimes of species decline include poaching, habitat destruction, and the wildlife trade. Crimes of water pollution include toxic dumping, oil spills, and contamination of rivers or water supplies.
Secondary green crimes often reveal power relations even more clearly. They include organised dumping of hazardous waste, illegal disposal networks, and violence directed at people who resist environmental destruction. In other words, environmental harm is not only about the initial damage. It is also about the social processes used to hide it, profit from it, or silence opposition.
The global distribution of green crime is deeply unequal. Wealthier states and corporations often have more power to relocate dirty industries, export waste, or consume resources on a huge scale, while poorer countries and marginalised communities face the pollution, displacement, and health risks. This makes green crime a topic about stratification as much as about ecology. Those with the least power are often the most exposed to harm.
Imagine a company from a wealthy country exporting hazardous waste to a poorer country where monitoring is weak. A narrow legal approach might focus only on whether a specific regulation has been breached. A green criminology approach would also ask why risk is being transferred to less powerful populations and who profits from that arrangement.
This is one reason green criminology fits sociology so well. It shows how environmental harm is linked to global inequality, political power, and uneven development rather than being treated as a purely technical problem.
State crime and human rights
Green crime widens criminology beyond ordinary offenders. State crime widens it even further by asking what happens when governments themselves commit serious harm.
State crime
Criminal or deviant acts committed by, or on behalf of, the state, including acts that may violate domestic law, international law, or basic human rights.
State crime includes obvious extreme cases such as genocide, torture, war crimes, and unlawful killings, but sociologists also include corruption, censorship, illegal surveillance, and forms of systematic discrimination. The key issue is that the state has unusual power: it makes laws, controls official records, and claims legitimacy when using force.
Eugene McLaughlin offers a useful classification of state crime:
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account