Abstract
AbstractCriminological and sociological discourse recognizes the impact of structure on crime, but generally eschews the consideration of structural damage and human suffering emanating from malevolent social movements (e.g., the Holocaust). Legal formalism presents conceptual challenges that has hindered analysis of harmful macroscopic phenomena, as it created jurisprudential impediments to be surmounted by the architects of the Nuremberg Tribunals. In considering these issues, a new ‘dark figure’ is identified that is compatible with phenomena examined from the social harm perspective, and to remediate disciplinary myopia, a specification of Edwin Sutherland’s (1945) concept of social injury is suggested and contrasted with Galtung’s (1969) construct of structural violence. Social injury refers to the recursive damage to social structure and human potential through the functional impairment of social institutions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,General Social Sciences,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference112 articles.
1. Adams, G., & Balfour, D. (1998). Unmasking administrative evil. Sage.
2. Afflitto, F. M. (2000). Victimization, survival and the impunity of forced exile: A case study from the Rwandan genocide. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 34(1), 77–97.
3. Agassi, J. (1960). Methodological individualism. The British Journal of Sociology, 11(3), 244–270.
4. Agnew, R. (2012). Toward a unified criminology: Integrating assumptions about crime, people, and society. New York University Press.
5. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献