Abstract
State crimes against democracy (state crimes) are defined differently from typical political crimes for personal gain. State crimes against democracy are “concerted actions or inactions by public officials that are intended to weaken or subvert popular control of their government” (deHaven-Smith, 2006, p. 333). State crimes, sometimes referred to as SCADs, attempt to circumvent the constitutional system of checks and balances and the rule of law and, in turn, the popular control of government. Citizens not well educated in democratic principles and government administration may accept state crime as politics-as-usual or a necessary evil without understanding the ramifications for democracy. As long as the public continues to legitimize these types of behaviors, state crimes are likely to continue. A normalization of the state crime heuristic in the minds of citizens and of those in government is required before significant steps can be taken to reduce or eliminate these types of criminality.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbate, F. (1974). “The Conspiracy Doctrine: A Critique”. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 3 (3): 295–311.
Black, H. C. (1983). Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
deHaven-Smith, L. (2006). “When Political Crimes Are Inside Jobs: Detecting State Crimes Against Democracy”. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 28 (3): 330–355.
deHaven-Smith, L. (2010). “Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government”. American Behavioral Scientist, 53 (6): 795–825.
Doyle, K. (1999). “The End of Secrecy: U.S. National Security and the Imperative for Openness”. World Policy Journal, 16 (1): 34–51.
Dye, T. R. (1976). Policy Analysis: What Governments Do, Why They Do It, and What Difference It Makes. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
Feinberg, L. (2004). “FOIA, Federal Information Policy, and Information Availability in a Post-911 World”. Government Information Quarterly, 21 (4): 439–460.
Glasberg, D. S., and Skidmore, D. (1998). “The Dialectics of White-Collar Crime: The Anatomy of the Savings and Loan Crisis and the Case of the Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan Association”. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57 (4): 423–449.
Halstuk, M. (2002). “In Review: The Threat to Freedom of Information”. Columbia Journalism Review, 40 (5): 8.
Hinson, C. L. (2010). “Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy”. American Behavioral Scientist, 53 (6): 826–847.
Langevoort, D. C. (1997). “Organized Illusion: A Behavioral Theory of Why Corporations Mislead Stock Market Investors (and Cause Other Social Harms)”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 146 (1): 101–172.
Lewis, C., and Reading-Smith, M. (2008). False Pretenses. The Center for Public Integrity website. Retrieved 23 February 2008 from http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard.
Locker, J. P., and Godfrey, B. (2006). “Ontological Boundaries and Temporal Watersheds in the Development of White-Collar Crime”. British Journal of Criminology, 46 (6): 976–992.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, C. (1999). “Structures and Strategies of Interdisciplinary Research”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50: 242–253.
Pigden, C. (1995). “Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong with Conspiracy Theories?” Philosophy of the Social Science, 25 (1): 3–34.
“Revisiting Watergate”. (2008). The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 March 2008 from http://washingtonpost.com.
Renzetti, C. M. and Lee, R. M. (1993). Researching Sensitive Topics. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sutherland, E. H. (1940). “White-Collar Criminality”. American Sociological Review, 5 (1): 1–12.
Sutherland, E. H. (1945). “Is ‘White Collar Crime’ Crime?” American Sociological Review, 10 (2): 132–139.
Walsh, L. E. (1993). Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters. Washington, DC: United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Witt, M. T. (2010). “Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship”. American Behavioral Scientist, 53 (6): 921–939.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Chris Hinson
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hinson, C. (2013). Normalizing the SCAD Heuristic. In: Kouzmin, A., Witt, M.T., Kakabadse, A. (eds) State Crimes Against Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137286987_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137286987_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-34539-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-28698-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)