Criminology Revision 2020

ATC Criminology Revision 2020
What is Crime, Genocide, Crime Statistics, Feminism
CRIMINOLOGY Past Year Questions
October 2019
1.‘The ordinary western person is implicated in crime and linked to global networks of crimes and victimisation in ways they never
think about. But this very lack of thought simply reinforces their guilt.’
Discuss.
2. To the question, “why punish?” there are a number of theoretical positions. Each position is rational but collectively they have
contradictions. Moreover, when we seek to use these theoretical positions to explain the social reality of punishment they are irrelevant.’
Discuss.
3. ‘Classical criminology was founded on the idea of reason, reasonable systems and rational actors. But our societies are places of great
inequality, social injustice and contingency. In such situations emotions such as resentment or pride understandably give rise to what may
appear as irrational choices; however, these are often completely rational when seen from the situation of the offender.’
Discuss.
4. EITHER
(a) ‘Sociological perspectives present accounts of social structure or the social structural conditions in which individuals find themselves
but when we seek to account for human choice in those circumstances we have to turn to individual or psychological perspectives.’
Discuss.
OR
(b) ‘Psychological and sociological accounts of crime are incompatible. You have to choose one perspective or the other.’
Discuss.
5. ‘We do not understand the reality of the relationship between women and crime because our “knowledge” is highly influenced by
media perceptions, and our criminology is created by males who are themselves the product of gender stereotypes.’
Discuss.
6. Compare and contrast the different sources of knowledge we have about crime and ‘offenders’. Are some more ‘truthful’ than
others?
7. Consider ONE writer and ONE theory or event you have encountered in this module and explain how they have changed YOUR views
on crime and offenders since undertaking this module.
8. ‘Genocide not only annihilates people but also destroys and reorganises social relations. We cannot create ways to prevent
genocide until we face up to the productive elements of it.’
Discuss.
2019 June A/B

1. ‘When we confine our attention to matters inside our nation-states then what crime is and how to deal with it seems rational and
understandable. But when we look globally, we see huge differences between countries in their use of the criminal law and state power so
that it becomes very difficult to separate politics from crime and criminal justice seems more a weapon of the powerful than a neutral
function of the social order. This makes a science of criminology impossible.’
Discuss.
2. ‘The official criminal statistics – both on a national level and globally – fail to capture the reality of crime. Other forms of knowledge
need to be used to get a true picture of crime.’
Discuss.
1
eltan 2020
3. ‘Classical criminology and positivism give us two extreme models of the criminal: the rational actor verses the predestined object. The
reality is much more complex and fluid with reason, emotions, the opportunities of the environment, the narratives in which the subject
describes themselves, as well as the legacies of their upbringing all playing a part.’
Discuss.
4. ‘Philosophies of punishment individually appear coherent and logically consistent; but when they are combined, as they must be, they
contradict each other and when we seek to use them to explain the social reality of punishment they simply appear irrelevant.’
Discuss.
5. EITHER
(a) ‘Psychological attempts to explain crime can reveal personality failings and difficulties; but they fail to account how these result in
crime, even in the case of the so-called psychopath.’
Discuss.
OR
(b) Take any TWO writers OR theories you have encountered in this module and explain how they have changed YOUR views on crime and
offenders since undertaking this module.
6. EITHER
(a) ‘Sociological accounts of crime reveal more about the social structure of society and social process than the actual commission of
crime, so while revealing background condition, they are unable to help us prevent crime.’
Discuss.
OR
(b) ‘Often the background conditions are irrelevant; committing crime is simply a result of the power of the situation, an existential
choice.’
Discuss.
7. ‘Feminism is not just a “theory” or a “perspective”, but a way of being, a way of seeing; consequently with a feminist gaze the world of
perpetrators and victims looks different, is different, as is the meaning of just and unjust gender relations.’
Discuss.
8. ‘For all the talk of prevention and justice, genocide keeps repeating. In part because although genocide is horrific, it is also a way of
reorganising society and in that sense productive. It cannot be stopped until that is acknowledged and faced up to.’
October 2018
1. ‘The official criminal statistics are social constructions and so the picture they present of criminal activity must be interpreted in ways
that take into account the processes of reporting and recording events; nevertheless the patterns they show have to be accepted and they
are the most reliable source to develop theories of criminal involvement on.’
Discuss.
2
eltan 2020
2. ‘The great appeal of classical criminology was the idea of rational choice, thus crimes could be prevented by laying out a clear scheme
of consequences. But much crime results from irrational choices, emotions and what Katz calls the “seductions of evil”, or, simply “the
power of the situation”. In these cases rational choice is an illusion.’ Discuss.
3. EITHER
(a) ‘The stories offenders tell show how much techniques of neutralisation are at work in their thinking. This is more important than the
claims of mainstream psychological approaches.’
Discuss.
OR
(b) Critically assess the contribution of psychology to explaining criminal behaviour.
4. EITHER
(a) Why is it so difficult to agree upon a definition of crime and what are the consequences for criminology?
OR
(b) ‘Developing a criminological imagination is hard. We inhabit the globe, but our possibilities are due to our life in our localities; this
reality means that our image of crime is usually localised and the ways in which we are implicated in global networks or supply chains that
involve individual and social degradation, individual and social victimisation, is extremely difficult to communicate or to deal with.’
Discuss.
5. What is ‘genocide’ and why is it so difficult to prevent?
6. Assess the contributions that anomie theory OR labelling theory have made to understanding crime.
7. ‘For all its criticisms of traditional criminology feminist perspectives have achieved little.’
Discuss.
8. Why punish?
2018 June A/B

1. Explain the sources of knowledge that are used in criminology and analyse what those sources reveal and what they hide.
2. ‘Classical criminology, positivism and critical criminology each have their strengths but they cannot be combined to provide a coherent
theory of crime as they use incompatible frames of reference.’
Discuss.
3. Take ONE writer or theory and ONE event or situation (for example, the prevalence of torture in the ‘war against terror’) and explain
how they have changed YOUR views on crime or social harm since undertaking this module.
4. EITHER
(a) ‘We understand what moral panics are and how they are created, but seem unable to prevent their constant re-occurrence.’
Discuss.
OR
3
eltan 2020
(b) ‘On many occasions involvement in crime is not due to any precedent factors, it is just an existential leap or reaction to the power of
the situation.’
Discuss.
5. ‘Psychological perspectives in criminology simply show that “criminals think differently” and so psychology provides no useful insights
in the field of criminology.’
Discuss.
6. ‘At least in the field of criminology feminism changes nothing and challenges nothing; it is an intellectual waste of time.’
Discuss.
7. EITHER
(a) The political and ideological concerns of the state determine the definition of what is crime at any one time; but today we now
understand that the state is often the criminal. How can we face up to this problem?
OR
(b) ‘Genocide is the crime of crimes. But for all the attention it receives it keeps happening.’ Discuss.
8. ‘Our theories of punishment are inconsistent and contradictory; therefore punishment is always unjustified.’
Discuss.
2017 Oct
1. Critically compare and contrast the philosophical and methodological approaches of Classical criminology and positivism.
2. ‘We can now see how limited and problematic the concept of “crime” is to form the foundation of the science of criminology, but all
other concepts appear unworkable.’
Discuss.
3. ‘With globalisation we need to change the focus and concerns of criminology. The state should no longer be the definer of crime; we
need to see the state as part of the problem and seek to understand our own position amidst complex flows of goods and capital. Other
concepts such as human rights abuse or social harm will better enable us to understand the realities of oppression, victimisation and risk
than “crime”.’
Discuss.
4. ‘Official criminal statistics are social constructions and leave out vast amounts of crime, but they enable politicians and others to make
questionable claims about crime rates. We need a wider analysis of the reality of crime.’
Discuss.
4
eltan 2020
5. Take any ONE writer AND ONE theory you have encountered in this module and explain how they have changed YOUR views on crime
and offenders since undertaking this module.
6. ‘Feminism is a vehicle of protest but has little impact on criminology.’
Discuss.
7. Why punish?
8. How does a psychological approach differ from a sociological approach in terms of explaining crime?
2017 A/B
1. ‘Globalisation changes the foundations of criminology. Instead of accepting the state as the definer of crime, the state becomes part of
the problem and concepts such as human rights abuse or social harm offer better routes in to study the realities of oppression,
victimisation and risk than “crime”.’
Discuss.
2. EITHER
(a) ‘Psychological attempts to explain crime emphasize personality- based characteristics, but even in the case of the so-called
psychopath we cannot finally determine if these are inherited or acquired in life.’ Discuss.
OR
(b) ‘Criminals think differently to non-criminals. This is the simple fact at the basis of psychological attempts to explain crime and those
attempts that analyse the techniques of neutralisation or other narratives offenders tell.’ Discuss.
3. ‘The Classical school and Positivism reflect different philosophical versions of modernity; humans must be treated as free-willed and
rational but a commitment to science indicates we must analyse them the same way we analyse in the natural sciences. But the dilemma
is that both sides are correct.’
Discuss.
4. ‘The problem with using official criminal statistics as data to construct a picture of crime and as the basis to build theories of crimes
and criminality is that they are a social construct and as such are the product of a chain of decisions as to what to include and how to
count. This holds true in any jurisdiction and also in efforts to get a worldwide perspective.’
Discuss.
5. ‘Although rooted in labelling theory the concept of “moral panic” has outgrown its early history and now applies to a wide variety of
circumstances in diverse jurisdictions and, in some cases, globally.’
Discuss.
6. ‘Punishment is an emotive response; attempts to impose rational frameworks upon it fail.’
Discuss.
5
eltan 2020
7. Take any TWO writers OR theories you have encountered in this module and explain how they have changed YOUR views on crime
and offenders since undertaking this module.
8. ‘There is a criminology of the university, research units and scholarly publications and there is a “public criminology” of the mass
media, social media, films, novels and museums. This public criminology is more influential but displays no overall coherence.’
Discuss.
A] What is Crime
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/may/29/taylor-swift-accuses-trump-of-stoking-the-fires-of-white-
supremacy-and-racism
Durkheim- Iron Fist of Authority to quell dissent by law.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3086982/hong-kong-police-cite-covid-19-threat-
banning-annual?utm_source=email&utm_medium=share_widget&utm_campaign=3086982
2016, Q2, ZA&B
“Criminology needs another basis instead of stated-defined crimes. Human rights abuses or social harm
offer a better foundation to study the real issue of oppression, victimization and risk, particularly given
the development of globalization.”
The Malaysia government used the Printing Presses and Publication Act (PPPA) to ban “any yellow coloured
clothing” bearing the logo of the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (known as Bersih, meaning “clean” in
Malay) and any publications about a planned Bersih rally. The government has instituted criminal investigations
of several opposition politicians for wearing Bersih t-shirts. Crime to the general understanding of a lay man –
the man on the clapham omnibus is an act or omission that is against the law and punishable upon conviction.
the government has criminalized the action for wearing a yellow colour shirt. Thus, the definition of crime as
per McCabe that there is no word in the in the lexicon of legal and criminology terms which is so exclusive
of definition as crime. According to Morrison, there are at least four frameworks in which to make sense of
how crime is define; namely crime as a reflection of nation state legality, crime as social construction,
crime in the city of god and crime which beyond nation state legality.
Crime as a reflection of nation state legality

According to Stephen Jones, without criminal law there can be no crime. HLA Hart emphasized something is
made a crime does not necessarily mean it is immoral. This can be related to Zulkiflee Anwar Alhaque or better
known as Zunar, is a political cartoonist. His criticisms of the government and political issues in his cartoons
has gotten him arrested for Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948. Conversely, if according to Hart, some
activities which are immoral are not made crimes, such as a husband forced sex on his wife (marital rape) is not
a crime in Malaysia. Therefore state-defined crime is unsatisfactory.
Crime as social construction
Prof. Morrison has explained that crime is a “label” created in social interaction, but once it is created it has both
a symbolic and practical implication. Morrison is said that crime is a social construction, it is the social choice to
recognize an event as a crime, or a person is a criminal. Therefore, crime is not inherent of an individual as
advocated by Cesare Lombrosso- Criminal is born evil. It is the society that create crime. This can be explained
by an example such as honour killings in Pakistan. An honour killing is the homicide of a member of a family or
6
eltan 2020
social group by other members, due to the belief the victim has brought dishonour upon the family or
community. In the majority of cases, the victim of the attacks is female with her attackers being male members
of her family or community The death of the victim is viewed as a way to restore the reputation and honour of
the family. The people in Pakistan do not recognize the honour killing as a crime, because they believed that the
victims are bringing shame to the family and thus, they are given the “authority” to kill them.
Human rights abuses in Malaysia and other countries go unpunished. Malaysia is not a signatory of the
UNCHR. The law should recognize that abuse of migrants, both legal and illegal, like the Rohyngias in
Malaysia is an offence. Nothing has been done to charge any person in Malaysia with the murder by starvation
of Rohyngia migrants at the border of Malaysia – Thailand. Thus human rights abuses in all forms should be
highlighted as a separate branch of Criminal Law – this could provide more protection for the victims.
Crime which is beyond nation state legality

This element is the most relevant to our question in defining what is crime today. Schwendinger actually has
challenged the criminologist to expand the definition of crime which lead several criminologist to replace
“crime” with “social harm” or protection of Human Rights (Hillyard, 2004). According to Morrison, how we go
beyond the nation-state to more global issue, when crime and social harm is an ongoing and vital issue?
Morrison is correct, the nature of crime has changed this several decades. Human rights abuses or social harm
offer a better foundation to study the real issue of oppression, victimization and risk, particularly given the
development of globalization. Such violation of human rights, by the state, can be seen in genocide case in
Cambodia in which an estimated 1.5 to 3 million people died. Genocide is still not recognized as a state crime,
thus the major powers are still selective in providing aid to the victims. It is obvious that we have to adopt a
global approach to crime.
Globalisation of crime
Global criminology is an emerging field covering international and transnational crimes that have not
traditionally been the focus of mainstream criminology or criminal justice. Globalisation of crime explain that it
is a crime that cross border.
Recently, a conference called Global Criminology: The conference of Crime and Victimization in Globalized
Era that took place in Jaipur, India in 2011 was to determine criminology similarities and differences in different
regions. Four dominant themes emerged at the conference:
i) Terrorism
Is terrorism a crime issue or a national defense issue? Should terrorist be treated as war criminals,
soldiers, or civil criminals? How can international efforts and local efforts work together to defeat
terrorism?
ii) Cyber Crimes and Victimization

As cyber space develops, cyber crime develops and grows. To achieve better cyber security, global
criminologist must explore cyber crimes from a variety of perspectives, including law, the
motivation of offenders, and the impact on victims.
iii) Marginality and Social Exclusion

Marginalized people are excluded from important material, social, and human resources. For
example, those illegal immigrant can be said that they are only having a marginal rights and not an
equal rights in the country.
iv) Theoretical and Practical Model of Criminal Victimization

The process of globalization creates a new elements of victimization. But, it can also become an
opportunity for confronting and defeating victimization through improved sharing of knowledge
and increased understanding of the humanity of the weak.
The fundamental goal of the conference is to help to expand the boundaries of criminology, criminal justice, and
victimology with a view towards reducing crime worldwide.
Stan Cohen in his book “In State of Denial” expressed how societies and individuals cloase their eyes to abuse
of human rights, such as torture and disappearance of political opponents, genocide.
7
eltan 2020
Alleged human rights abuses by Donald Trump's new administration are being recorded in detail by a new
internet tool created by one of America's most prestigious universities. The "Trump Human Rights Tracker" was
designed by the Human Rights Law Review (HRLR), a journal produced by Columbia University, which sits
among most highly respected legal institutions in the world. "As soon as Trump became President, his
administration immediately threatened women’s rights, immigrants’ rights, and indigenous rights, and so many
more,” Julia Sherman, HRLR editor, told The Independent.
The banning for the Muslim from entering into United States, Trump’s order on abortion policy and many
others has shown that Donald Trump’s policies indeed was the real issues of oppression. We can said that
Trump has given the “new definition” on what is crime- Muslim entering into US is a crime even when women
decided to do abortion is a crime ( Men making decisions about women's bodies). Trump is creating massive
social harm in the U. S. by his policies and executive acts.
Conclusion
William Shakespeare in his poem stated “ what is in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name
would smell as sweet”. This may be able to tie this line back to the subject at hand in relation to Criminology
that is searching for a “universal definition” for crime. We can conclude that as at today, we are no longer
depends on the state for defining or providing to the citizen as to what is crime. It may be better to analyze crime
by taking a global view as looking at crime from a global perspective will like a “mirror revealing a picture of
social relations not otherwise seen” (Nils Christie) and also to consider human rights abuses and social harm as
offences.
B] GENOCIDE
Professor Morrison: Did the world stand by and let genocide occur in 2017? If so, what do you make of this?
The module guide (Chapters 1, 2 and 10 in particular) stresses the wide range of behaviour that can be termed
crime and asks that you seek to develop a global criminological imagination. Perhaps of all the events in the
world in 2017/18, as they impact on criminology, it is most apt to consider the controversy over the legal and
sociological definition of ‘genocide’ and what if anything should the world (and you) be doing to prevent it.
Genocide (and in part the Holocaust) is covered in the reading: Morrison, W. Criminology, civilisation and the
new world order. (Routledge, 2006) Chapter 3 ‘Criminal statistics, sovereignty and the control of death:
representations from Quetelet to Auschwitz’. (See Chapter 10 of the module guide.)
Genocide is widely regarded as the worst of all crimes, it is today common to see it referred to as ‘the crime of
crimes’. Yet it traditionally received very little attention in criminology. This may partly be explained by the fact
that criminology has traditionally focused on individual deviant behaviour, and individual participation in
genocide cannot generally be classed as behaving ‘individually’ deviant. On the contrary, the individual
perpetrators of genocide, and the agencies to which they belong, have generally conformed to the norms
espoused by the rulers of their societies at the time of their actions; the Holocaust is the prime example.
The International State Crime Initiative at the School of Law Queen Mary University of London (one of the
participating Law Schools that make up the Consortium for the University of London Law degree) has for
several years been warning that the situation in Myanmar was genocidal. Green, P., T. MacManus and A. de la
Cour Venning (2015) [ISCI REPORT] ‘Countdown to annihilation: genocide in Myanmar’.
http://statecrime.org/state-crime-research/isci-report-countdownto-annihilation-genocide-in-myanmar/
In looking at this we bring the following chapter to your attention and it is on the VLE: Feierstein, D. Genocide
as a social practice. Reorganizing society under the Nazis and Argentina’s military juntas. (Rutgers University
Press, 2014) [ISBN 9780813563176]. Chapter 6 ‘Reshaping social relations through genocide’ (on the VLE). You
should consider:
8
eltan 2020
 If the processes that Feierstein has outlined are applicable to the situation of the Rohingya; and
 Is the definition in the Genocide Convention satisfactory for either legal or criminological purposes?
The two questions overlap as the Rohingya were being seen to provide a ‘contentious’ claim of genocide. (But
now, in February 2018, you may think it is contention no more, it simply is proven to be ‘genocide’.) In recent
years, it has become common to hear that the 1948 Genocide Convention has become a vital legal tool in the
international campaign against impunity and that its provisions, including its definition of the crime and its
pledge both to punish and prevent the 'crime of crimes', have now been interpreted in important judgments
by the International Court of Justice, the ad hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and various
domestic courts. True, there has been a process of jurisprudential clarification: namely, judicial interpretation
of the Convention, where it has been debated by the International Law Commission, and political statements
in bodies like the General Assembly of the United Nations and the growing body of case law. Scholarly
attention has been given to the concept of protected groups, to problems of criminal prosecution and to issues
of international judicial cooperation, such as extradition. There was general consensus that the duty to prevent
genocide and its relationship with the emerging doctrine of the 'responsibility to protect' were also being
strengthened. tÜ~í=áë=íÜÉ=ä~ï\= As explained in the Morrison chapter, the Genocide Convention is very much
the consequence of the Holocaust and the campaign of Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer. In 1943, during
the Holocaust, when 49 of his own relatives had been murdered by the Nazis, Lemkin coined the word
‘genocide’, combining the Greek word genos, (‘family, tribe or race’) and the Latin word caedere (‘to kill’). In
1948, Lemkin thought he had achieved his aim with the drafting and adoption of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which the General Assembly of the United Nations
adopted on 9 December that year. However, the final text was a political compromise. See Lemkin, R.
‘Genocide as a crime under international law’. The American Journal of International Law 41(1) (1947) pp.145–
151. Ask:
 What is problematic about the definition of genocide in international law?
 How does the convention differ from Lemkin’s original formulation of genocide?  Is law the best tool for
genocide prevention? The Contracting Parties, Having considered the declaration made by the General
Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under
international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world,
Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and Being convinced
that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required, Hereby
agree as hereinafter provided: Article I The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in
time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to
punish. Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the
group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to
another group. Article III The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit
genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity
in genocide. Article IV Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be
punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary
legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective
penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III. Article VI Persons
charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal
of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may
have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction. Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose
of extradition. The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with
their laws and treaties in force. Article VIII Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the
9
eltan 2020
United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for
the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III. Article IX
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present
Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts
enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the
parties to the disputeThe UN Charter stressed a role for maintaining worldwide peace and security, Lemkin
had stressed a process in which aims were to:  ‘… destroy or cripple permanently…’  ‘… the essential
foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die…’  and he accepted the reality
of cultural genocide. These were too wide for the final convention. But even so there seems a clear case for
prevention. Note the International Court of Justice in Case concerning application of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (26
February 2007): http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/91/091-20070226-JUD01-00-EN.pdf [a] State’s
obligation to prevent and the corresponding duty to act arise at the instant that the State learns of … the
existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed’ (para It would seem that states have a clear
obligation to act, so why is there inaction? Regarding the Yezidi genocide (the Yezidi are a religious minority in
Syria/Iraq. On August 3th 2014, 40,000 Yezidis fleeing the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) became
stranded on Mount Sinjar. Since that date, horrific stories of sexual slavery, massacres and torture have
emerged from the women who managed to escape from ISIS’ grip. On the first day, 1,293 people were killed,
by 15 August, 6,500 people, mostly women and young boys and girls were kidnapped. The women and girls
were often forced to convert and used as ‘wives’ or sex slaves; the boys forced to convert and join ISIL as
young fighters (and other alleged instances). UK government ministers have repeatedly responded to claims
that they should act to prevent genocide by saying: It is a long-standing Government policy that any
judgements on whether genocide has occurred should be a matter for the international judicial system rather
than legislatures, governments or other non-judicial bodies. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2016-
04- 20/debates/16042036000001/DaeshGenocideOfMinorities In the Catholic Herald, 4 Feb 2016, Lord David
Alton, in a posting entitled ‘We cannot ignore this genocide’ explained his experience of seeking to have
behaviour termed ‘genocide’ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/february-5th-2016/wecannot-ignore-
this-genocide/ Arguing that until the murderous persecution of Christians by ISIS is recognised for what it is, its
perpetrators cannot be brought to international justice, he related that just before Christmas 2015, 75
parliamentarians, from both Houses and all parties – including the former head of our Armed Forces, the ex-
head of MI5, and former cabinet ministers – wrote to David Cameron urging him to declare the atrocities being
committed against Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in Syria and Iraq as genocide. That
coincided with the centenary of the Armenian genocide, in which between 800,000 and 1.5 million Armenian,
Greek Orthodox and Assyrian Christians lost their lives. It is impossible not to see today’s events as anything
other than a continuation of that shocking story. Recalling that the signatories to the Genocide Convention
declared that they would never again tolerate any ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. He asked: So is genocide what is happening today in Syria and Iraq
– specifically to Christians and Yazidis? Pope Francis has said that it is – and so has Hillary Clinton and
numerous others. In our letter to the Prime Minister in December we said: ‘There is no doubt in our minds that
the targeting of Christians and other religious minorities by Daesh [ISIS] falls within that definition.’ We urged
the British Government to seek agreement at the United Nations that we should name things for what they
are. We insisted: ‘This is not simply a matter of semantics. There would be two main benefits from the
acceptance by the UN that genocide is being perpetrated…’ The first is that those responsible would one day
face a day of judicial reckoning, and the second is that it would require the 147 states that have signed the
convention to ‘face up to their duty to take the necessary action to “prevent and punish” the perpetrators.’
However, the response was from the Foreign Office to repeat a familiar mantra: ‘It is a long-standing
government policy that any judgments on whether genocide has occurred are a matter for the international
judicial system rather than governments or other non-judicial bodies.’ Alton rightly points out that: This is a
frustrating and circular argument. Which international courts and judges should decide, on the basis of what
process, and in considering what evidence? And what steps are the government actually taking to ensure that
those courts do indeed urgently consider the matter and reach a conclusion? If there isn’t a process that we
are willing to invoke at the UN, then the convention is just window-dressing and is an insult to the intention of
10
eltan 2020
the original drafters and ratifiers, as ‘never again’ inevitably repeats itself over and over again. So we confront
the reality of the world – the question, in 2017 did the world let genocide happen? In January 2017, the BBC
had asked ‘Who will help Myanmar’s Rohingya?’ Calling the Muslim Rohingya minority the most friendless
group in the world. Throughout 2017, Myanmar kept assuring the world that stories were made up, it was fake
news. As the Guardian reported on 29 September 2017: Myanmar tells UN: ‘There is no ethnic cleansing and
no genocide’ of Rohingya https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/29/myanmar-unethnic-cleansing-
genocide-rohingya. There at the central forum of the ‘world community’, a term that gained so-called legal
significance from the Nuremberg Trials postWWII, the US ambassador to the UN stated that we should not: be
afraid to call the actions of the Burmese authorities what they appear to be: a brutal, sustained campaign to
cleanse the country of an ethnic minority… And it should shame senior Burmese leaders who have sacrificed so
much for an open, democratic Burma. In response, the Burmese delegate simply stated: I can assure you that
the leaders of Myanmar who have been struggling so long for freedom and human rights, will never espouse
policy of genocidal ethnic cleansing and that the government will do everything to prevent it. He blamed the
real reason for the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people into Bangladesh on ‘terrorists’. By December
2017, CNN were reporting that: There’s only one conclusion on the Rohingya in Myanmar: it’s genocide’ (story
by Azeem Ibrahim, author of The Rohingyas: inside Myanmar’s hidden genocide(C Hurst & Co (Publishers) Ltd
(2016)). https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/23/opinions/myanmarrohingya-genocide/index.html Stating that
the Rohingya crisis was now widely described as ethnic cleansing, Ibrahim pointed out the situation had been
evolving several years along the well-trodden path of genocidal processes. By December 2017, the headlines of
the Washington Post were simple: In 2017, the world let a ‘genocide’ unfold (article by Ishaan Tharoor, 18
December 2017): https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12 /18/in-2017-the-world-
let-a-genocideunfold/?utm_term=.83a05403d942 We often say that we did not know, that we are uncertain.
But 2017 was not short of evidence: while the government in Myanmar made it difficult for journalists to get
to Rakhine State, horrifying stories simply poured out of Myanmar. As Tharoor summarised: Since late August,
more than 626,000 ethnic Rohingya have fled what seemed to be a systematic campaign of attacks by the
Burmese military and local militias in the country's Rakhine state — the most rapid exodus of a community
since the Rwandan genocide. An aid group estimated that some 9,000 Rohingya, including 1,000 small
children, died between late August and late September. Satellite data showed hundreds of villages burned to
the ground, while virtually everyone who escaped to squalid refugee camps in Bangladesh has a horror story to
tell. Look at Pulitzer Center reported material, such as ‘Rohingya methodically raped by Myanmar’s armed
forces’, 11 December 2017, AP News, by Kristen Gelineau. At http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/rohingya-
methodically-rapedmyanmars-armed-forces See the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ‘Bearing
witness report November 2017 “They tried to kill us all”: atrocity crimes against the Rohingya Muslims in
Rakhine State, Myanmar’. https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/201711-atrocity-crimesrohingya-muslims.pdf So, if
after the Holocaust the cry is never again, why does genocide keep repeating?  Why has the international
community by and large refused to define the persecution of the Rohingya as genocide?  What are the causes
of genocide in Myanmar?  What do you think of the international community’s reaction to the case of the
Rohingya?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11685977
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52832841?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/
c77jz3mdqm1t/asia-migrant-crisis&link_locat
Question: Genocide is often labelled as the crime of crimes, yet it traditionally received very little attention in
criminology. Discuss
Suggested solution:
If Hitler said he would make no move outside the Reich so long as allowed a free hand insides his borders,
society might on occasion boycott German wines, but no foreign power would take action, George Steiner
referring to the Holocaust during World War II sums up the reality of genocide.
11
eltan 2020
With so much progression and advancement made to reaching today’s civilisation, genocide being regarded as
the worst of crime in terms of scale is still happening in light of the recent Rohingya massacre in Myanmar.
While we all would most agree that killing is unlawful, let alone the killings of thousands or even millions, the
same cannot be said when it is committed by the nation state themselves. The reason why genocide has
received little attention in criminology is not because of the theory or concept of it being difficult to grasp,
rather it is the enforceability of the law of genocide, if we could even call it law, for international laws are not
really law, they are only binding to those nation states that signed and ratified.
One of the most notable genocide has been the Holocaust during World War II, where estimated six million
Jews were massacred in the concentration camps in Germany by the Nazis. This atrocity has led to the
awakening of many nation states to contemplate the need for a more humane way of deal. Many
organizations were formed after the devastating WWII to rebuild the world in political, economic and social
aspects. The 1948 United Nations Genocide convention was drafted by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish
lawyer, as an immediate response to the atrocities committed during WWII.
The convention laid out the general consensus that there is a duty to prevent genocide and a strengthening of
the doctrine of “responsibility to protect”. Article I states clearly that genocide is a crime whether committed
in time of peace or in war. Other articles define genocide to be any act committed with intent to destroy any
groups based on nationality, ethnicity or religious beliefs. It could be committed by direct way of killing or
indirectly through physical destruction of their living condition as well as preventing the births of children
within the group. Article VI also stipulated that persons charged with genocide shall be tried by a competent
tribunal of the state, or international tribunal which its jurisdiction have been accepted.
Pol Pot et al for instance, has been tried for crime against humanity, for the mass killing that resulted in two
millions death during his time as the prime minister of democratic kampuchea in the 1960s. In addition of
killing those who are regarded as enemies of its government, many urban populations were forcefully
relocated to countryside to farm under malnutrition and strenuous working conditions that many have died as
a result. He was eventually sentenced to house arrest until his death in 1988.
The convention while seems impressive on paper, its practical effect is severely limited. For one the convention
is only limited to the contracting nation states who have signed and ratified to uphold these articles and be
bound by it. For another conventions like this is based upon the shaking foundation of international law, where
it could be easily influenced by the major powers like the permanent members of united nation security
council, where they hold immense power in terms of politics, economy and military. Should one of the
permanent member veto in passing a resolution, there is little that can be done to give effect to these
conventions
The mantra “it is a long standing government policy that any judgments on whether genocide has occurred are
a matter for the international judicial system rather than governments or other bodies” has been cited by UK
government ministers on the Yezidi genocide in 2014. As David Alton points out this is a frustrating and
circular argument, saying that it would render the convention as nothing more than a window dressing and is
an insult to the intention of the original drafters and ratifiers. A individual nation state cannot act while the
international body, the UN who is supposed to act is often slow in reacting due to the disagreements in passing
a resolution.
12
eltan 2020
The Rwandan genocide in 1994 has shown how ineffective the international law and community in dealing
with genocide, with up to one million Rwandan killed while displacing two million refugees. By the time the
United Nations have mobilized troops into Rwanda, irreversible damage and massacre have already been
done. Despite having assistance troops from the UN to oversee the Rwandan Arusha Accords, its effectiveness
in peacekeeping has been hampered by the UN security council and could not have acted in time to prevent
the extermination. These international helpers were essentially reduced to a bystander role.
Fast forward to the recent Rohingya refugees crisis, where the Myanmar government has been carrying out
what they called “Clearance operation” in the Rakhine State as a reaction of the attack on police by a Rohingya
militant groups (Harakah al Yaqin). While the operation is described as an multiagency efforts to combat and
apprehend Rohingya militants, in practice as reported by Fortify Rights, it is used to commit mass atrocities
against Rohingya civilians, men women and children included.
What have the international community done to stop the Myanmar government from mass killings its minority
citizens, besides a call for a revocation of the Nobel peace prize given to Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the
Myanmar government, who is supposed to protect its people yet have done nothing to avert the escalation of
the Rohingya crisis since 2012. There have been a lot of criticisms and condemnations towards the Myanmar
government for their inaction, or even their involvement in the mass killing, by the international community,
yet it will likely remain as condemnation and nothing effective would be done to hold those accountable. Even
if the those who have committed the crime against humanity be tried and charged in a court of law, the
damage done cannot be undone.
The little thing the international community can do is to help the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees
who has fled the country as their homes are destroyed. They remain stateless as the Myanmar government
does not recognize them as citizens, while other neighbouring countries have been reluctant to take these
refugees in. But who can blame these neighbouring countries where many have claim that these countries
should have mind their own affairs before taking care of others. As a result these refugees have been living in
concentrated slumps with barely any supplies from the UN.
Law can never be the tool for genocide prevention, no government in this world would pass law to limit its
power of policy determination. Law can only be applied to prevent genocide to the extent of recognition of
international law as binding on all countries including the major powers. This would mean that the world and
its leaders adopt the moral philosophy of Ronald Dworkin and also combined with the political determination
that international law uphold justice in each and every country in the world - David Chandler. Given the
amount of reservations multiple nation states have with regards to the conventions that attempt to uphold
human rights and liberties, it is doubtful that international law can be effective in limiting a state to carry out
mass murder of its citizens. Perhaps other forms of sanction like economic would work better in keeping the
government of a particular state in check, Money makes the world go round.
C] Criminal Statistics
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/
crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2019
[Release date April 23 2020 ]
2018 October paper Question 1
13
eltan 2020
‘ The official criminal statistics are social construction and so the picture they present of criminal activity
must be interpreted in ways to take into account the processes of reporting and recording events;
nonetheless the patterns they show have to be accepted and they are most reliable source to develop
theories of criminal involvement on,’ Discuss.
The statement are certainly not wrong to say that statistics are based on social construction as per
Emile Durkheim since they are the product of a chain of decisions and processes through the will of the maker
of the statistics. Hence, we see the statistics through the lens of the maker, we see what they want us to see.
Thus, by looking at this point alone, one can argue that statistics are definitely not the most reliable source of
quantitative analysis since it does not provide the whole picture of the event and the statement above is true
that we have to take into account the processes of reporting so that we do not blindly believe the statistics.
however , how can they be the most reliable source for one to base a theory on when they are not. This
author conceded that though they are not the most reliable it cannot be denied that they serve a useful
purpose in providing the writers with datas to support their theories. Perhaps the precaution here is to always
warn the readers that such set of datas might not be conclusive as it does not show us the backstage to the
story.
The idea behind the use of statistics was noble as Quetelet and Guerry hoped that it can be reflective
of the crime rates in real life and to understand the characteristics of criminality so that the structure of our
problems can be seen and thus allowing one to seek a solution to criminality and reach the utopia where this
problem can be obliterated. Nonetheless, because of the benefits of using statistics to present a set of facts as
it puts the facts in a simple form that enables one to understand it easily by looking at the tables or charts of
these statistics, it is regrettable that it often became a tool spreading the policy or propaganda of the
government. This can be easily seen through the example of the terror reign of Hitler where a picture chart
labelled with the description of ‘ The Jews are our misfortune’ showing the threats of the Jews by illustrating
that they dominate the upper class jobs. As per Baumann, such use of modernising scientific spirit that
present their cause using such brilliant design was one of the factors why the Nazi holocaust succeeds. Rather
than improving the life of the people, it allows the policy makers to manipulate us into their narratives. This is
the ‘downside’ of modernity as described by Baumann.
It is not unsafe to say that the problem above exists till today. For example in Malaysia, the official
statistics showed that the crime rates are manipulated as per the Member of the Parliament, Tony Phua and
this can be supported by the then Home Minister in 2013, Zahid Hamidi where he was dubious that the violent
crime rates were decreasing despite the official statistics suggest otherwise. Another example would be the
police themselves are subjected to a quota where they would try all possible means to remain in that quota
such as dismissing the reports or telling the victims that their case is too weak so that they would withdraw
their alleged claim, especially in a less serious crime scenario for the government do not want to be seen as
failing in their job to curb the increasing crime rates.
Take the example of the sharp fall in murder and rape rates in Scotland in 2018 where it dropped
from 13% to 7%. Does it mean that crimes had fallen? The answer is we are not sure because accompanying
this decline is also the fact that it is the year where the number of the police force had dropped to its lowest
ever since the year 2003. Rather than taking the statistics at face value, one may look at other factors such as
the decline in the police force to draw a relation between the two. By chance, the drop in the murder and rape
rates may be due to the inefficiency of the police force in solving the cases. Another problem with official
statistics is that it failed to reflects the ‘dark figures’ of crime, which means the crimes that never comes to the
police’s attention as shown in the British Crime Survey that are not official statistics but surveys directed to the
14
eltan 2020
victims. Another example would be the online fraud that has been increasing steadily but it was not until the
victim survey was introduced in October 2015 the cyber crime is not in itself a separate legal offence, hence it
does not form part of the official statistics.
This may have resulted from the unwillingness of victims to report the crime. This may be due to the
lack of confidence in the police force due to their double standards conduct or racism attitudes or even the
possibility of getting away through bribery, which is a view shared by majority of the citizens of Malaysia.
Besides that, Stephen Jones also opined that the reason why the victims may not want to lodge a police report
is the fear of intimidation and revenge by the offender or sometimes some people may not even be aware that
such conduct are crimes such as sexual assault on a child or that the victim is brought up in a such an
environment that abuse was considered the norm. It is also difficult to seek help when the offender was
someone that the victim knows, especially if they have a close relationship. Sometimes victims to sexual
offences may choose to remain silent because of the stigma of shame attached to the offence, like in countries
of Malaysia and China whereby the society are conservative to sexual topics like these.
Whilst the victim survey seems to solve the issue of dark figures of crimes, such as the Crime Survey
for England and Wales (CSEW) because it is not subjected to the changes in the reporting policy and police
recording styles it is nevertheless not perfect for it does not measure fraud or the white collars crime since the
victims themselves might not be aware that they are defrauded. It also does not measure victimless crimes
such as the possession and distribution and trafficking of drugs. In some cases, the victims themselves would
be willing to admit that they are victims to a crime, especially in sexual offences cases as a mean of running
away from reality. It also does not represent the whole community since the survey is conducted using a
survey system based on the postal address as sampling frame so it will miss out the people without a
postcode, for example the homeless people. The worst risk with this survey is the possibility of mistakes, lies
and exaggerations of their experience with the alleged crimes. Hence, the victim survey too might not be
totally reliable as conceded by Stephen Jones himself.
Nonetheless, as asserted above, statistics still played a important role in today’s society. At the end of
the day, it is not the fault of statistics that it can be manipulated to reflect what its maker want us to see since
it is a tool of presenting a set of datas, nothing more. Hence, if it is utilised properly, there is no reason why it
cannot be a tool for the theorists to substantiate their research on. It is an exceptionally useful tool to act as a
signal of a particular rising event such as the increased of murder and knife crimes in England and Wales to
16% in 2018 by the Office of National Statistics ( ONS) and it was reported in another statistics by the Home
Office that the numbers of police has dropped to their lowest since 1996. This can be used to explain the
relationship between the two using the broken windows theory that shows that once the police has withdraw
the crime rates will increase again. This is supported by the statistics showed by the Home Office that more
cases have been closed with no suspect identified. Arguably, these shows that the policy decisions by the
government to cut funds on the criminal justice system does indeed impacted much on the crime rates.
Besides, there is nothing better than the use of statistics to drive point home since it present such a clear
picture with the numbers placed in front of us, for example the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center
(SPLC) says that the hate groups in the United States have continued to surge in the Trump era. This is also true
when we see that the anti-Muslim hate crimes reported across Britain has increased by the staggering amount
of 593% in a week following a white supremacist killed the Muslim worshipers in the Christchurch mosques in
New Zealand. Certainly there is a clear and obvious connection between them.
Statistics are not confined to local use, as it can also be used to present a international and global
picture such as the Global Peace Index (GPI) that covers 99.7% of the population and the peace of the states
15
eltan 2020
are measured using the level of society safety and security, the extent of international conflict and the degree
of militarisation. In 2018, it showed that the world is still embroiled in the tensions and crisis, especially in the
Middle East. Syria remained the least peaceful country, a position it has held for the past five years. It also
showed the correlation between peacefulness and the macroeconomic performance with the higher the peace
level the higher the per capita GDP growth it has. Though we cannot accept these statistics blindly, it does not
change the fact that it remains a useful guide for the people as to give them some general idea about the
conditions of a country.
In conclusion, the statement in the question can only be partly correct as explained in the discussion
above. An interesting quote by Aaron Levenstein to sum up statistics would be that statistics are like bikinis
because what they reveal is suggestive but what they conceal is vital.
D] FEMINIST CRIMINOLOGY
Professor Morrison’s Subject Guide Chapter 8.6: Feminism, criminology, the postmodern moment and
globalisation
Burke (p.238) asks – and this has been an examination question in the past – is there a feminist criminology?
What he means by this is that, to feminists, criminology was so compromised that a feminist criminology was a
contradiction in terms.
However, globalisation and postmodernism to some extent renders such a question redundant. The future
cannot be one of theoretical isolation but confrontation with global issues and corresponding local issues in
which the local and the global are intermixed.
This was, perhaps, recognised by many feminist writers, for example, consider the following from Patricia
Smith:
We don’t need a final unified vision of society and gender to argue against oppression, disadvantage,
domination, and discrimination. We do not need to know beforehand the nature of good society or ideal
person so long as we know what prevents a society from being minimally good or prevents individual from
realizing the basic potentials of personhood. We do not need an ultimate vision when we have not yet met
threshold conditions for minimally just society. The commitment to foster open dialogue that allows the
expression of diverse views and gives particular attention to eliciting views not usually heard is a unifying
thread among feminists that attempt and represent the commonality of fundamental values without
misrepresenting the plurality of experience.
Patricia Smith, ‘Introduction: feminist jurisprudence and the nature of law’ in: P. Smith (ed.) Feminist
jurisprudence (1993).
The complex conditions of contemporary globalisation intensify the need for contextual analysis. It is not only
that theoretical understandings need constant positioning and re-positioning but that both the position of
women and the nature of criminal justice have radically altered. For instance, there are now far, far more
women in English prisons (not only absolutely but as a proportion of convicted female lawbreakers) than there
have ever been before. Does this reflect a form of ‘equality’? Is it an instance of the ‘new punitiveness’? Who
are these women? Issues such as international drug trafficking and sex trafficking come to the fore.
Eltan 2020 June - A reminder that patriarchal, cultural, religious factors cannot be eradicated easily:
16
eltan 2020
Indonesian honour killing: brutal death of schoolgirl Rosmini Darwis, 16, sparks copycat fears
 The girl was hacked to death with a machete and wooden log after she revealed she was dating
someone, in a case that has shocked the nation
 While honour killings are common in the Middle East and South Asia, there has until now been no
such reports in Indonesia
Amy Chew
Published: 12:00pm, 31 May, 2020
Indonesia is known for its diversity and moderate brand of Islam but activists are concerned about patriarchal
double standards for women. Photo: AFP
Indonesia’s first reported honour killing of a schoolgirl earlier this month has shocked the nation and prompted
rights activists to warn of a “contagion” effect amid a rising wave of religious ultraconservatism.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3086764/indonesian-honour-killing-brutal-death-schoolgirl-
rosmini-darwis?utm_source=email&utm_medium=share_widget&utm_campaign=3086764
2014 A/B
17
eltan 2020
Q.7 'Within criminology the impact of feminism has been more to raise issues about gender and the position of
women in the global networks than to explain women's differential involvement in crime.' Discuss.
Suggested solution
Feminism movement has been in a long run since the enlightened feminist Mary Wollstonecraft in the 18 th
century. Throughout the years, feminism has gone through a few waves of movement and ranges from liberal,
radical, Marxist and post-modernism of course (just to name a few). All these movements of course also have
affected criminology in many ways. For one to say that feminism only raise issue about gender and position of
women in global networks, is not accurate. As this will wipe away how raising these issues formed a basis for
study of criminology to rely and further elaborate on, as the traditional way of looking at the study of
criminology is more of a 'male standard'. Hence, this essay seeks to first discuss about how feminist
criminology is assess by the traditional male perspective and go on to discuss how feminism kicks in and
actually gives a better and different perspective on viewing female involvement in crime.
Feminist criminology is all about women's involvement in crime, whether as perpetrators, victims or
even workers in the criminal justice system. The stirrings of feminist criminology are nearly 2 decades old. Daly
and Chesney-Lind (1988) suggest that criminology is androcentric in the study of crime and the justice process,
and that the "general" theories of crime/ deviance does not take into account female experience (MacKinnon,
1982). Traditionally, criminologists tend to rely on the biological nature of women to study why women
commit crime and explain crime statistics on female offenders. This could be seen in the work of Cesare
Lombroso where he claimed that women were less highly evolved compared to men and so lacked the
intelligence and initiative to become a criminal. Also, Sigmund Freud who theorised that all women suffer from
penis envy and they seek to compensate this inferiority complex by being narcissist and exhibitionistic,
focusing on scanty and trivial matters instead of being interested in building a just civilization. Besides, Otto
Pollak in The Criminality of Women claimed that women prefer profession like maids, nurses, teachers so that
they can engage in undetectable crime where female offenders are inherently sneaky, vengeful, deceitful and
so can conceal crime better than men. Thus, it explains the underrepresentation of women as female
offenders. It could be see that from all the studies and theories on female offenders as mentioned are based
on male perspective of a woman on their so-called 'inherently biological nature'.
However, criminological delinquency has surpassed the gloomy days of biological determinism and
predetermined actor of crime. This was criticized by Kathleen Daly and Chesney-Lind in 1988 who identified
two central problems of 'male dominated criminology', namely the "generalizability problem" and the "gender
ratio problem". With regards to the "generalizability problem", it is argued that the traditional malestream
theories of crime should not be a 'one size fit all' model as it may overlook factors that are unique to females.
Where the "gender ratio problem" shows that women are always underrepresented as offenders or victims.
Daly and Chesney-Lind suggested that it was a breakthrough that the problems were being distinguished as
two separated theoretical problems as it allowed people to think more precisely about the variability within or
differences between male and female. And as a result, feminists came up with different theories to explain
difference in rate of offending of males and females.
For instance, Freda Adler in 'Sisters in Crime' and Rita Simon in 'Women and Crime' argued that it was
sociological and not physiological factors that best explain women's criminality. By putting forward the
'liberation theory', they proposed that female emancipation during the increased economic opportunities of
women allowed women to be as crime prone as men. Women are climbing up the corporate ladder where
Adler believed that women would be equally violent as men if they were given the opportunity to take on
men's social and political role. However, this is being criticized by Carol Smart. She opined that tying the ‘new’
female offender's emergence to women's liberation brought about a "moral panic”, which was a backlash to
the women's movement, and represented another symbolic attempt to keep women subordinate to men by
threatening aspirers for equality with the images of “the witch, the bitch, and the whore" (Chesney-Lind,
1980).
Besides, on the suggestions that female offenders are being treated with more leniency which is also
known as the 'chivalry thesis' were being criticized. The topic of chivalry has united feminist criminologists in
18
eltan 2020
arguing that female offenders actually experience a form of ‘double jeopardy’ which exposes them to gender
discrimination by punishing them not only for their unlawful behaviour but for deviating from gender norms
(Carrabine et al, 2004). Moreover, Farrington and Morris concluded if women were having ‘lighter’ sentences
passed upon them than to men, it is more likely due to women being in court on first offences, whilst some
men commit crimes more frequently and are thus not on their first offence. However, the Roger Hood's study
(1992) explained that this is inaccurate because many factors were not taken into account. Additionally, the
methodology used to compare both gender on the same crime is in adequate as it left out other factors such
as the seriousness of the offence and also the offender's past records of conviction. Besides, is it true that
female offenders are being treated more leniently? It is dubious especially where women were tracked
through alternatives to custody such as social work supervision, especially with a medical or psychiatric
component. The charity Inquest released a report which showed that 116 women died while under probation
supervision after release from prison between 2010-11 and 2016-17.
Apart from that, another way that feminist criminology had impacted our understanding of crime is
when Klein (1973) and Smart (1976) brought explicitly feminist perspectives to their critiques of extant
theoretical & empirical work on the female offender. Klein, a Marxist-feminist, noted the absence of economic
and other social explanations for female crime, whereas Smart identified the relationship between
stereotypical assumptions of the causes of female crime and how female offenders are controlled and treated.
Smart argues that 'girls are generally more supervised than boys, and are taught to be passive and
domesticated'.
Perhaps, the greatest contribution of feminist criminology is in ‘victimology’, which strives to make
visible women’s victimisation and to challenge the rationalisations of male violence against women (Newburn,
2007). This has also raised and addressed some global issues such as human trafficking, prostitutions,
pornography and etcetera. One of the key critique of feminism was that since women’s lives were seen to be
in the private domain, violence against women within the home was invisible though women are much more
likely to be raped within their own homes (Smart). Furthermore, Tierney and Lynn (2004) argued that sexual
violence against women was not primarily motivated by sexual desire but by a need for dominance and power.
Fortunately though, in the nation outcry following the Delhi gang rape in 2012, though several representatives
of the political class outrageously held women responsible for sexual violence, stating that they should be
better controlled to prevent rape, this incident led to a reviewing of the laws on sexual crimes. By treating
sexual violence as serious violation of bodily integrity and not as a crime against honour, the Verma
Commission report reiterated the position of feminist groups all along.
On the issue of human trafficking and prostitution, according to the recent 2017 Global Estimates of
Modern Slavery report by the International Labour Organization, which is a contribution to the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) has shed some light on this issue. From the report, of the 40 million victims of
human trafficking worldwide in 2016, an estimated 71% were women and children. Women are normally being
exploited in sex trafficking, and ending up being a prostitute. They irony part of this issue is that when there
are any prostitution raids, the prostitutes are put to the blame and being imprisoned, whereas the human
trafficker will get loose and disappear. For instance, in the Telford sex scandal, where it was termed as Britain's
'worst ever' child grooming scandal, exposed that hundred of young girls are being raped, beaten, sold for sex
and some even being killed. One of the victim named 'Lily' in the Britain tv show "Good Morning Britain" even
told the host that authorities did nothing when she needs help. In September 2016, MP Lucy Allan calls for a
public inquiry but police and council officials in Telford write to Home Secretary Amber Rudd saying this isn’t
necessary! These women do not deserve all of these acts by men and of course should not be treated as trivial
matter. Feminists now march in Slutwalk protests, and lead campaigns to eradicate the eroticism of rape and
criminalise male kerb crawling, effectively resulting in the policing of sexual crimes to protect women (Wykes
and Welsh, 2009).
Besides, in this modernised era we live in, social media plays a very important role in our daily life.
Today, the internet has allowed campaigns with regards to feminist movement to go international. A prime
example is the #HeForShe campaign, which is initiated by UN Women had gone viral on social media with over
1.2 billion people pledging for change and gender equality on various platforms. Thus, it would be too ignorant
19
eltan 2020
a stance to suggest that feminist criminology has made little impact either on our understanding of crime or on
policy towards processing victims and offenders.
In conclusion, the impact of feminist criminology in widening our perspectives on crime, and its role in
filling in the gaps of traditional ‘malestream’ criminological theories cannot be underestimated. Britton in her
article ‘Feminism in Criminology: Engendering the Outlaw” stated that by focusing on new research & theories
of women criminality, feminist criminology has successfully shown that women were vastly underrepresented
as offenders/victims, and also exposed the deeply male-gendered structure of the criminal justice system. If
given another 50 years, who is to say that feminist criminology cannot bring more to the criminological table?
Why don't we see how things goes, before judging a book by its cover.
.Q. 7 2017 A/B
Take any TWO writers OR theories you have encountered in this module and explain how they have changed
YOUR views on crime and offenders since undertaking this module.
[NO QUESTION ON FEMINIST CRIMINOLOGY].
Q6 Oct 2017
‘Feminism is a vehicle of protest but has little impact on criminology.’ Discuss.
2018 A/B
6. ‘At least in the field of criminology feminism changes nothing and challenges nothing; it is an intellectual
waste of time.’ Discuss.
2018, Oct
Q.7 ‘For all its criticisms of traditional criminology feminist perspectives have achieved little’. Discuss
2019 A/B
Q.7 ‘Feminism is not just a “theory” or a “perspective”, but a way of being, a way of seeing;
consequently with a feminist gaze the world of perpetrators and victims looks different, is different, as
is the meaning of just and unjust gender relations.’ Discuss.
2019 Oct
Q. 5 ‘We do not understand the reality of the relationship between women and crime because our
“knowledge” is highly influenced by media perceptions, and our criminology is created by males who are
themselves the product of gender stereotypes.’ Discuss.
Suggested solution: The statement is basically true as we get most of our social news from the Press . This can
lead to a skewed understanding of current events and press sensationalism may hide and distort the true
relationship between female gender and crime. Catharine Mackinnon has emphasized that the patriarchal
legal system protects the male perpetrators not the female victims –“get your feet off our necks”- which
accounts for the female gender inspired women’s aid organizations around the world, including Malaysia.
20
eltan 2020
Discussion of Feminist Criminology :

[from above answers]
Most glaring shortcoming of current Feminist Criminology activists – failing to obtain adequate protection for
female partners of violent relationships. But this could be due to the patriarchal legal systems around the
world. Institutions around the world exist to provide help and shelter to female victims of violence.
However, until we get into the psyche of such victims, many of them cannot be helped.
Discuss from materials below:
MATERIALS:
Domestic violence killings - UK
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49459674
Domestic violence killings - Europe
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49586759
Violence-against-women -world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46292919
WHO - violence-against-women-during-covid-19
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/
violence-against-women-during-covid-19?gclid=CjwK
WAO Malaysia
https://wao.org.my/domestic-violence-statistics/
Conclusion – The statement is basically correct.
21
eltan 2020

Criminology Revision 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminology Revision 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATC Criminology Revision 2020

What is Crime, Genocide, Crime Statistics, Feminism

CRIMINOLOGY Past Year Questions

2019 June A/B

(b) Critically assess the contribution of psychology to explaining criminal behaviour.

5. What is ‘genocide’ and why is it so difficult to prevent?

2018 June A/B

6. ‘Feminism is a vehicle of protest but has little impact on criminology.’

6. ‘Punishment is an emotive response; attempts to impose rational frameworks upon it fail.’

Durkheim- Iron Fist of Authority to quell dissent by law.

2016, Q2, ZA&B

Crime as a reflection of nation state legality

Crime as social construction

Crime which is beyond nation state legality

ii) Cyber Crimes and Victimization

iii) Marginality and Social Exclusion

iv) Theoretical and Practical Model of Criminal Victimization

 What is problematic about the definition of genocide in international law?

[Release date April 23 2020 ]

2018 October paper Question 1

Published: 12:00pm, 31 May, 2020

.Q. 7 2017 A/B

[NO QUESTION ON FEMINIST CRIMINOLOGY].

‘Feminism is a vehicle of protest but has little impact on criminology.’ Discuss.

Discussion of Feminist Criminology :

Domestic violence killings - UK

Domestic violence killings - Europe

Conclusion – The statement is basically correct.

You might also like