An Introduction to Green Criminology and Environmental Justice

Angus Nurse, Author

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781473908109, 9781473908093
• eBook ISBN: 9781473952669
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

A comprehensive introduction to green criminology, this book is a discussion of the relationship between mainstream criminal justice and green crimes.

Focused on environmental harm within the context of criminal justice this book takes a global perspective and

• Introduces students to different theoretical perspectives in green criminology
• Looks at the victims of environmental crime throughout
• Covers topics such as; wildlife crimes, animal abuse, the causes of environmental crime, regulation, exploitation, environmental activism, policing, prosecution and monitoring.

Designed to help readers develop a thorough understanding of the principles of environmental justice and green criminology, as well as contemporary developments, this book will be excellent support to students of green criminology and environmental crime.

part I Introduction And Theory

1 An Introduction To Green Criminological Theories

By the end of this chapter you should:

• Have a firm understanding of the principles of green criminology and the various meanings ascribed to the term.
• Understand the core concepts of ‘environmental justice’, ‘ecological justice’, ‘species justice’ and ‘environmental harm’ that underpin green criminology.
• Understand the rationale for a green criminology and an eco-global perspective on criminology, as well as some of the criticisms that might be made of green criminology.
• Understand green criminology’s place within critical criminology and comparative criminology, as well as its importance within socio-legal study.

Introduction

Criminologists have increasingly become involved and interested in environmental issues to the extent that the term ‘Green Criminology’ is now recognized as describing a distinct subgenre of criminology. Within this unique area of scholarly activity researchers consider not just harms to the environment, but also the links between green crimes and other forms of crime, including organized crime’s movement into the illegal trade in wildlife. A wide conception of the interplay between green crimes and mainstream crimes are also considered, such as the links between domestic animal abuse and spousal abuse or more serious forms of offending such as serial killing (Linzey, 2009; Nurse, 2013a). Within green criminology, scholars focus on various issues of importance to environmental and social harm from a green perspective. In doing so, they have exposed environmental and ecological injustice as well as identifying areas where mainstream criminal justice could benefit from a green perspective while also examining where ‘general’ criminal justice techniques can be applied to green crimes.

This introductory chapter sets out to explain what green criminology is and to discuss some of its theoretical underpinning.

Contextualizing Green Criminology

Green criminology is not easily categorized given that it draws together a number of different perspectives as well as theoretical and ideological conceptions. Thus rather than there being one distinct green criminology, it is rather an umbrella term for a criminology concerned with the general neglect of ecological issues within criminology (Lynch and Stretesky, 2014: 1) as well as the incorporation of green perspectives within mainstream criminology. Indeed as Lynch and Stretesky succinctly state:

As criminologists we are not simply concerned that our discipline continues to neglect green issues, we are disturbed by the fact that, as a discipline, criminology is unable to perceive the wisdom of taking green harms more seriously, and the need to reorient itself in ways that make it part of the solution to the large global environmental problems we now face as the species that produces those problems.

(2014: 2)

This overview goes some way to explaining both the importance of green criminology as well as the problems that a green criminology hopes to overcome. Traditional criminology is primarily concerned with the day-to-day business of ‘ordinary crimes’ described by Lea and Young in their classic work What Is To Be Done About Law and Order? as ‘street crime, burglary, inter-personal violence—the crimes of the lower working class’ (1993: 89). This continues to be the case for mainstream criminology where restrictive notions of police and policing by state institutions and of crime as being solely that determined as such by the criminal law dominate. Green criminology, however, extends beyond the focus on street and interpersonal crimes to encompass consideration of ‘the destructive effects of human activities on local and global ecosystems’ (South and Beirne, 1998: 147). In doing so green criminology considers not just questions of crime as defined by a strict legalist/criminal law conception (Situ and Emmons, 2000), but also questions concerning rights, justice, morals, victimization, criminality and the use of administrative, civil and regulatory justice systems. Green criminology also examines the actions of non-state criminal justice actors such as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations. Crucially, green criminology considers the role of such organizations as active participants in justice systems as well as being monitors of justice system failings. As leading green criminologist Nigel South once wrote, addressing environmental harms and injustice requires ‘a new academic way of looking at the world but also a new global politics’ (2010: 242).

In part, green criminology contends that the historical approach of criminal justice systems to dealing with crime is inadequate to deal with crimes of larger significance and those which involve non-traditional crime victims. In doing so it challenges traditional conceptions of crime, injustice and victimhood as well as approaches to crime and criminality that may not reflect the contemporary reality of global harms.

Much of this book is concerned with environmental crime, primarily those acts prohibited by the law and defined as crime but also incorporating regulatory offences; ‘technical’ breaches of the law that may not be defined as crimes but which nevertheless are the subject of some form of sanction and punishment. The reality is that many practices that cause environmental harm are ostensibly legal and there is an argument that only those things defined by criminal law as offences can really be classed as green crimes. Situ and Emmons (2000: 2) define this as follows:

The strict legalist perspective emphasizes that crime is whatever the criminal code says it is. Many works in criminology define crime as behaviour that is prohibited by the criminal code and criminals as persons who have behaved in some way prohibited by the law.

In short, the strict legalist view is that crime only exists where the criminal law defines it as such by prohibition of certain acts under the law. An alternative approach to animal and environmental legislation sometimes advocated by activists is the social legal perspective which argues that some acts, especially by corporations, ‘may not violate the criminal law yet are so violent in their expression or harmful in their effects to merit definition as crimes’ (Situ and Emmons, 2000: 3). This approach ‘focuses on the construction of crime definitions by various segments of society and the political process by which some gain ascendancy, becoming embodied in the law’ (Situ and Emmons, 2000: 3). For example, industrial pollution events are often regulatory breaches rather than actual crimes but are considered so serious in their impacts that green criminology would argue they constitute environmental crime (Lynch and Stretesky, 2014). However, a central focus of green criminology is the notion of environmental harm, a conception that incorporates the victimization and degradation of environments and harm caused to nonhuman animals. Lynch and Stretesky (2014: 8) argue that environmental harms are more important than the personal harms of street and property crimes both in terms of being more extensive and damaging. They argue that ‘the environment around us is under expanded assault, that is it is routinely harmed and damaged by humans’ (2014: 9).

The reality of environmental harm is that its consequences are wide-reaching, affecting more than just the direct victims of street crime and impacting negatively on ecosystems, future generations and the survival of many human and nonhuman animal species. Hall (2013) identifies that environmental harm has the potential for long-term negative impacts on human health (citing examples such as Bhopal, Chernobyl and the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill where direct human harm was a consequence). Environmental harm also has negative long-term economic, social and security implications and is thus worthy of consideration by criminologists as both direct and indirect threat to human populations. Both Hall (2013) and Lynch and Stretesky (2014) identify that environmental harm is often a focus of neoliberal markets and the exploitation of natural resources by corporations and states, but much harm is entirely legal or at least distinctly not criminal. This theme is explored by a range of other writers (Stallworthy, 2008; Walters et al., 2013) and is a core part of green criminology’s claim for developing justice systems and research enquiries that extend beyond concentration on criminal justice systems and the use of the criminal law, something which this book explores in its discussion of various aspects of green criminology. Accordingly the term ‘environmental harm’ is referred to repeatedly throughout this chapter and the remainder of the book and has importance not just in discussing criminal harms but also in discussing green criminology’s approach to wider harms.

What is Green Criminology?

Defining green criminology requires embracing a range of different conceptions not just on what green criminology is, but also on: what it seeks to achieve; what perspectives should (and should not) be included; and also contrasting perspectives on what it means to be ‘green’ (Lynch and Stretesky, 2003). Rob White (2013b: 25) identifies differences within green criminology on the distinction between ‘harm’ and ‘crime’, partly linked to debates around legal/illegal, but also in relation to conflicting perspectives on victimization and ‘varying conceptions of justice’.

Green criminology’s focus on the notion of addressing harm extends beyond criminal prosecution as a default response to offences and includes the use of civil sanctions and alternatives to criminal justice as applied to wildlife (Vincent, 2014). Rob White identifies that concern with environmental crime requires considering the local and the global ‘and to ponder the ways in which such harms transcend the normal boundaries of jurisdiction, geography and social divide’ (2012d: 15). In this context, green criminology falls squarely within critical criminological discourse; that body of criminology concerned with challenges to orthodox criminological thinking and which views crime as the product of social conflict; unequal power and social relations (Welch, 1996). However Halsey (2004) was critical of green criminology’s failure to clearly define itself, the nature of environmental harm and the types of regulatory structures needed to address environmental problems. Steve Tombs (Waddington, 2013) has also questioned the necessity for a green criminology (amongst other sub-disciplines) arguing instead for a zemiological approach (Hillyard and Tombs, 2011) based on the notion of social harm being inextricably linked to social and economic inequalities that are at the heart of a liberal state. In Tombs’ conception, many criminological problems are best understood by understanding the contexts in which harm is most likely to occur; the patterns and extent of harm; and the characteristics of those most likely to experience harm. Arguably only by examining these issues can solutions to crime problems, most of which are actually social harm problems, be achieved. Tombs further argues that as criminology already encompasses a wide range of study and green crimes are merely another form of harm, there is no need for distinct subgenres of criminology. In principle Tombs’ argument holds merit; given that criminology already incorporates study of social harms there is an argument that a distinct green criminology is conceptually redundant. However, successive green criminologists (Lynch and Stretesky, 2014; White and Heckenberg, 2014; Nurse, 2012, 2013a; Beirne, 2009; Wellsmith, 2011) have identified that mainstream criminology routinely ignores or marginalizes environmental and wildlife crimes, many of which fall outside the remit of criminal justice systems and are dealt with by regulatory, administrative or civil justice systems (Nurse, 2014; Stallworthy, 2008). Given that criminal justice systems primarily operate on the basis of a strict socio-legal definition of crime as defined by criminal legislation (Situ and Emmons, 2000), the much wider and more serious harms that green criminology deals with, compared with mainstream crime’s street and personal crime focus, require detailed study. Accordingly, there is a need for dedicated, sustained consideration of the nature of environmental harms and the justice systems and policy mechanisms that address these as well as direct consideration of solutions to environmental crime problems.

Green criminology has developed considerably since Halsey’s original criticisms, into a globally diverse movement of academics, practitioners and policy professionals. Beirne and South identified that ‘movements in green environmentalism and in animal rights arose at about the same time, in the early to mid-1960s [although] only quite recently have they explicitly started to forge a common agenda’ (2007: xiii). The term ‘green criminology’ dates back to the 1990s (Lynch, 1990) when it originated ‘to describe a critical and sustained approach to the study of environmental crime’ (White and Heckenberg, 2014: 7). Lynch and Stretesky (2014) identify that growing awareness among criminologists of the extent of environmental harm and degradation and the failure of mainstream criminology and criminal justice policy to address these issues led to some criminologists focusing their attention on these issues. A green criminological ‘movement’ began in the 1990s and has gathered pace ever since.

A 1998 special ‘green’ issue of the journal Theoretical Criminology brought together a range of criminologists exploring issues as diverse as:

• rights and justice
• causes of animal abuse
• ecofeminism
• masculinities and environmental crime
• the ecological impact of illicit drug cultivation.

This illustrates a broad range of green scholarship and the development of green criminology since this time, which is evidenced by the existence of green conference panels, numerous books, journals and specialist green criminology book series and the willingness of research councils to fund green criminological research, is indicative of a healthy field renewing itself and seeking to make sense of a wider range of social harms than criminology has traditionally concerned itself with. Green criminology incorporates a critique of an anthropocentric perspective and integration of biocentric and ecocentric perspectives on crime, criminal justice and social harm.

Beirne and South describe green criminology thus:

At its most abstract level, green criminology refers to the study of those harms against humanity, against the environment (including space) and against non-human animals committed both by powerful institutions (e.g. governments, transnational corporations, military apparatuses) and also by ordinary people.

(2007: xiii)

By (slight) contrast, White and Heckenberg describe green criminology as a distinctive critical form of criminology as follows:

The term can refer to a specific focus on environmental crimes or harms: that is a particular topic for sustained criminological analysis (such as poaching of parrots). Alternatively it may refer to a conceptual approach premised upon certain notions of justice and particular moral frameworks, such as environmental justice or species justice. It may involve ‘old’ (that is conventional) theories and perspectives (general strain theory for example) applied to new areas (such as climate change) as well as ‘new’ methods and approaches (such as horizon scanning) applied to old areas (e.g. illegal waste disposal).

(2014: 7)

Both definitions identify green criminology as an umbrella term for a number of theoretical or conceptual approaches that combine to provide a means of applying a green perspective to crime. White and Heckenberg argue that green criminology should be defined as widely as possible to arrange for the broadest diversion of conceptual and empirical insights to be incorporated under its umbrella (2014: 7). This is certainly the case in contemporary green criminology where scholars consider a wide range of both distinctly green and mainstream topics broadly falling within the following categories:

• Environmental Criminology
• Environmental Justice
• Ecological Justice (including species justice albeit there is an argument for this to be considered as its own category).

The focus of green criminology thus extends beyond pure definitions of ‘crime’ to consider the nature and extent of environmental harm and the negative impact of human action on the enviro...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• About The Author
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Acronyms
• part I Introduction And Theory
• 1 An Introduction To Green Criminological Theories
• 2 Species Justice: Animal Rights, Animal Abuse And Violence Towards Humans
• 3 the causes of environmental crime and criminality
• part II Environmental Crime As Global Crime
• 4 The Future Protection Of Wildlife: Resolving Wildlife Crime And Illegal Wildlife Trafficking
• 5 Regulating Environmental Harm: Environmental Crime And Governance
• 6 The Criminal Exploitation Of Natural Resources
• 7 Climate Change And Environmental Damage
• part III Policing, Prosecuting And Monitoring Environmental Crime
• 8 The Green Movement: Ngos And Environmental Justice
• 9 Investigating Environmental Crime
• 10 Repairing The Harm: Restorative Justice And Environmental Courts
• Glossary
• Further Reading
• Useful Organizations
• References
• Index