Criminology: Paradox of Successful Failure

Theories of State Crime and Moral Panic

Theories of state crime and moral panic see exceptionalism as essentially lawbreaking and therefore, complicates the relationship between crime and social order as it deploys the attention to the redistribution of power between authorities. It tends to have contended that as security comes to challenge wrongdoing control as a critical object of criminological inquiry, bigger changes in courses of action for public security and regard of psychological warfare get another importance for criminology. Schmitt (2014) argues that the theory of war on terror and dialogue between criminology and international relations focuses on the theory of the state undermining the creation of moral panics created by state elites to advance their interests and power. Thus, the work of criminology is directed away from the interests of the crime and in favor of gaining the upper hand in the politics of authority, criminologists are focused on the criminal wrongs, rather than the pre-existing system of legal rights. The discourse of the war on terror has accepted the production and escalation of violence and terrorism as attention is deflected from the root causes of political violence and onto the government’s reinforcement of control. Therefore, suggesting that the modern political communities require a moment of violence or injustice to function, contradicting criminology’s aim to control the growing issue of crimes of all mediums, especially state criminality, and ultimately contributing to characterizing Loader and Spark’s (2010) argument of criminology’s ‘paradox of successful failure.’

War on Drugs and Human Rights Violations

Subsequently, the war on drugs is another illustration of the widespread human rights violation in the context of civil war and enhances the notion of the paradox of successful failure as the increasing prominence of the military and aid from the government supports economic underdevelopment. The issue of the war on drugs heightens previous arguments within this essay as it serves as a key driver in mass incarceration, punitive developments, and risk management. Harsh drug laws are crucial in excluding and containing the inner-city poor rather than creating a rational policy to drug use and it has promoted marginalized sections of the world to trade in the illicit drug market due to limited opportunities in the global economy (Alexander, 2012). In particular, ‘Plan Columbia’ supported the growth in the war on drugs as they provided a $7.5 billion aid package to support economic underdevelopment by the US government and to curb excessive trafficking of drugs. Aerial fumigation was utilized in the support of coca cultivation, therefore this resulted in the eradication of crops, disadvantaging the livelihood of rural farmers as they do not benefit from the drugs being produced despite drugs becoming more valuable. These problems are a huge issue within green criminology as the environment is being destroyed in favor of economic gain, however, these crises are rarely discussed and are often left ignored unless they implicate society on a larger scale such as the involvement of drugs in street crime.

Intensification and Expansion of Drug Law Enforcement

Subsequently, the intensification and expansion of drug law enforcement play a direct effect in deliberating policy decisions and in deciphering the differences of the war on drugs concerning the nature of the drug and those involved. Arguably, law enforcement practices have challenged the concept of punishment of crime as softer sorts of programs to become epitomized by various drug regimes within the justice system, e.g., Arizona (1996) and California (2000) passed initiatives that prevent courts from sending first- and second-time drug possession offenders to jail due to power (Tonry, 2011). Whilst intrusive policing enforcing proactive drug law enforcement generates several psychological, physical, and economic harm to victims, hence the war on drugs has allowed law enforcement to maintain and increasingly exert power on criminal institutes, despite a decrease in crime in the US. Therefore, the war on drugs is explicitly utilized by agencies to reveal institutional behavior much more directly than other forms of crime. State and local levels or the seriousness of drug offenses vary widely as drug courts and alternative treatment options have flourished simultaneously with the sentence severity of drug offenses increasing. These disparities within drug use can help in contextualizing our understanding of the unequal assertion of sanctioning individuals and clarifies how the criminal justice system and government fail to work collectively in eliminating the problem of the war on drugs. Moreover, the disparities provide an image of conflict within criminology in the study of a drug crime as green criminology focuses on the environmental problems that coincide with the production of drugs, yet critical criminology directs the attention onto the collateral consequences of street crime, government’s economic gain, mass incarceration, and racial discrimination. Seemingly, criminology is held accountable for its failure as the incessant conflict which arises between concepts such as the war on drugs provides an unclear explanation and understanding of how these issues should be understood and studied in the hopes of prevention.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decline of major theoretical criminology has been absent since 1990, therefore we can see that Loader and Spark’s belief of criminology’s ‘paradox of successful failure’ is valid. The demise of the theory and major conceptual limitation derives from a reluctance to engage in wider socio-economic and cultural processes of modern society, an absence of dominant conservative criminology has produced more fragmented views, impacting the value of the work published. It has become more distant in the theoretical orientation which focuses on the defense of liberal values as a conflicting view of theoretical explanations of social processes and issues of crime such as the war on drugs contributes to a more punitive and authoritarian style of social control. We can accept that the realignment of criminological theory has cemented the way for punitive explanations to become more significant in understanding the issues presented within this essay such as counter-terrorism legislation and issues of mass incarceration. The proliferation of texts regarding racial discrimination, state criminality, and issues of rehabilitation is weakened as criminology becomes compartmentalized and lacks the appreciation of theoretical explanations in the threat of administrative criminology holding more power. Finally, when considering everything, it should be understood that the discipline of criminology is still considered as a major contribution to sociology to analyze studies of crime, however, the neglection of explanations and dominance of governmental jurisdictions affects how criminology can remain the focal and dominant grounds for understanding the study of crime (Garland, 2001).

References

Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.

Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. University of Chicago Press.

Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2010). Public Criminology? Routledge.

Schmitt, C. (2014). The Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political. Telos Press Publishing.

Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma. Oxford University Press.