User:MG3098/final article

These are my recommendations for revising the article: Green criminology

Copied content from Green criminology. See that page's history for attribution.

Green criminological theory

It is often noted that green criminology is interdisciplinary and as a result, lacks its own unique theory or any preferred theoretical approach. Moreover, significant portions of the green criminological literature are qualitative and descriptive, and those studies have generally not proposed a unique or unifying theory. Despite this general lack of a singular theory, some of the approaches noted above indicate certain theoretical preferences. For example, as noted, the political economic approach to green criminology develops explanations of green crime, victimization and environmental justice consistent with several existing strains of political economic analysis. Beirne's approach takes an interdisciplinary view of theory with respect to various animal rights models and arguments. Clarke's rational choice models of animal poaching and trafficking build on the rational choice tradition found within the criminological literature. To date, these different theoretical approaches have not been examined as competing explanations for green crime and justice, a situation that is found with respect to orthodox or traditional criminological theories of street crime. However, there are different frameworks of ecophilosophy through which we may view the impact of environmental harm. Rob White discusses three different approaches: environmental justice, ecological justice, and species justice (or animal rights).

Conservation criminology

Conservation criminology is complement to green criminology. Originally proposed by an interdisciplinary group of scholars from the Department of Fisheries & Wildlife, School of Criminal Justice, and Environmental Science & Policy Program at Michigan State University, conservation criminology seeks to overcome limitations inherent to single-discipline science and provide practical guidance about on-the-ground reforms. Conservation criminology is an interdisciplinary and applied paradigm for understanding programs and policies associated with global conservation risks. By integrating natural resources management, risk and decision science, and criminology, conservation criminology-based approaches ideally result in improved environmental resilience, biodiversity conservation, and secure human livelihoods. This theory works to build knowledge from a culturally relative standpoint and built from experience, so that the perspective may be used on both a local and global scale. The philosophy works to examine potential influences on ecological harm at the intersection of multiple disciplinaries. As an interdisciplinary science, conservation criminology requires the constant and creative combination of theories, methods, and techniques from diverse disciplines throughout the entire processes of research, practice, education, and policy. Thinking about the interdisciplinary nature of conservation criminology can be quite exciting but does require patience and understanding of the different languages, epistemologies and ontologies of the core disciplines. Conservation criminology has been extensively applied to extralegal exploitation of natural resources such as wildlife poaching in Namibia and Madagascar corruption in conservation, e-waste, and general noncompliance with conservation rules. By relying on multiple disciplines, conservation criminology leapfrogs this ideal; it promotes thinking about second- and third-order consequences of risks, not just isolated trends.

Origins

The term "green criminology" was introduced by Michael J. Lynch in 1990, and expanded upon in Nancy Frank and Michael J. Lynch's 1992 book, Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence, which examined the political economic origins of green crime and injustice, and the scope of environmental law. The term became more widely used following publication of a special issue on green criminology in the journal Theoretical Criminology edited by Piers Beirne and Nigel South in 1998. Green criminology has recently started to feature in university-level curriculum and textbooks in criminology and other disciplinary fields. There have been arguments made that the word "green" should be removed from the terminology when referring to ecological harm, as it has political connotations. Mark Halsey suggests the term does not accurately portray the nature of the subject.

The study of green criminology has expanded significantly over time, and is supported by groups such as the International Green Criminology Working Group. There are increasing interfaces and hybrid empirical and theoretical influences between the study of green criminology, which focuses on environmental harms and crimes, and mainstream criminology and criminal justice, with criminologists studying the 'greening' of criminal justice institutions and practices in efforts to become more environmentally sustainable and the involvement of people in prison or on probation in ecological justice initiatives.