Seeing War as Criminal: Peace Activist Views and Critical Criminology

Abstract

A hallmark of critical criminology is its critique of the traditional definition of crime. For decades, critical scholars have proposed humanistic definitions of crime that bring state violence into the purview of academic criminology—although outside of critical criminology this is a matter of great contentiousness. This study investigates the views of those involved in peace activism, but not in any way associated with academic criminology, about the application of the term ‘crime’ to war, specifically the recent US war on Iraq. Given that there is no existing research on this subject, the article also examines how peace activists define crime generally and whether they believe those responsible for the war should be regarded as war criminals. Not surprisingly, semi‐structured interviews with 13 anti‐war activists reveal significant support for elements of critical criminological definitions of crime but an unexpected concern on the part of some that the application of the term ‘crime’ to war could be counterproductive in efforts to stop state violence. The rationales for this concern, as well as those for other issues addressed in the study, are largely presented in the interviewees’ own words.

Keywords:

• State Crime
• Peace Activism
• War
• Critical Criminology
• Pacifism

Notes

[1] While there is much that unites these perspectives in terms of their commitment to social justice, Arrigo (2001) points out that the differences between these theoretical perspectives results in fragmentation and consequently a weaker capacity for critical criminological praxis. Hopefully studies such as this one can clarify the extent to which critical criminologists and other progressives are on the same page, which should provide insight into the potential for strengthening partnerships for social change.

[2] Interviewee demographics were as follows: sex: seven males and six females; race: 13 whites; age: two 21–30 years, four 31–40 years, two 41–50 years, four 51–60 years, and one 71–80 years; highest degree earned: three high school diploma, four bachelor’s degree, and six graduate degree; political persuasion: nine independent, three Democrat, and one green‐Democrat; religiosity: five none, three Catholic, two Quaker, one atheist, one Lutheran, and one eclectic; occupation: one full‐time undergraduate student, three graduate students, four teachers/professors, one business owner, two social activists/organizers, and two advisors/counselors.

[3] The Justice Studies Association (JSA) has certainly been successful in this regard, and the American Society of Criminology’s Division on Critical Criminology is making headway in this direction as well. Many ‘premier’ academic organizations, such as the American Sociological Association, collaborate with practitioners but radical social change is clearly not the goal. The Society for the Study of Social Problems and the Association for Human Sociology, however, do have strong commitments to social change and, along with the JSA, have done much to advance praxis.