Using material from item A and elsewhere, assess sociological explanations for
the types and patterns of green crime.
Green crime is environmental crime of which rapidly increased with the enlightenment,
and as ITEM A SUGGESTS 'IT IS AN INEVITABLE PART OF LATE MODERN
SOCIETY'. Green crime has a unique nature due to the fact the world is divided into nation
states and therefore green crime is hard to prosecute as we all have separate jurisdiction.
For example, one nation state can damage and interconnected eco state with the form of
acid rain pollution. BECK argues that in late modernity (our post-modern society) we can
now provide adequate resources- however this allows ...view middle of the document...
SITU AND EMMONS are Traditional criminologists who define environmental crime as 'an
unauthorises act or omission that violates the law'. They therefore focus on the paterns
and causes of law breaking. A traditional viewpoint has some advantages such as it has
a clearly defined subject matter, however it is criticised for accepting official definitions of
environmental problems which are often shaped by powerful groups and therefore socially
constructed. Green criminology however takes a much more radical approach starting from
this notion of 'harm' rather that criminal law. WHITE further argues that the attention of
criminology should be any action that harms the physical environment and or human or
non human animals within it, even if a law has not been broken. For this reason, green
criminology can be viewed as a form of transgressive criminology which gets rid of the
problem of jurisdiciton as it is not law based, it is only based around the harm caused. Legal
definitions that the traditional criminologists follow can be criticised as they cannot provide a
consistent standard of harm due to the fact they are merely the product of individual nation
states. Different countries have different laws and therefore the same harmful action may
be a crime in one country but not in another, this is backed up by the quote 'deviance is in
the eye of the beholder'. Zemiology also backs up green criminologists view as they study
anything that causes harm to be a deviant action, this also removes the critique of selective
enforcement referred to by CHAMBLISS as nation states would not have the power to define
green crime themselves, however it would be based on actual fact.
SOUTH is a green criminologists and classifies crimes into two categories: Primary crimes
and Secondary crimes. Primary crimes are those that result directly from the destruction
and degradation of the earths resources. Crimes of air pollution adds 30 billion tons of
fossil fuels to the atmosphere, meaning that governments, businesses and consumers are
potentially criminals. Crimes of deforestation is also a primary crime, from 1960 to 1990, one
fifth of the worlds rainforests were completely destroyed. The 'war on drugs; created a huge
use of pestisides within rainforests to potentially stop the drugs from growing, however this
further damaged the environment. However, there is a question raised on who is to blame?
In this case, it would merely be the consumers of the drugs who demand them for supply or
consumption. Crimes of species decline and animal rights are additionally a form of primary
crime. At the current rate, at least 50 animals are...