Social harm future(s): exploring the potential of the social harm approach

Abstract

The notion of social harm has sporadically interested critical criminologists as an alternative to the concept of crime. In particular, it has been viewed as a means to widen the rather narrow approach to harm that criminology offers. More recently, the publication of Beyond Criminology: Taking Harm Seriously has renewed interest in the notion of social harm. The book asserted a number of very valid reasons for a social harm approach that provoked a number of interesting critical responses. The article seeks to respond to five recurring questions: Should the social harm perspective move beyond criminology? If so, where should the perspective locate itself? From this position, how will the perspective continue to engage within 'law and order' debates and address the concerns of those affected by crime? If the notion of crime is problematic, how will the perspective form an alternative definition of harm? Moreover, without a notion of crime and the accompanying concept of criminal intent, how would the perspective allocate responsibility for harm? The article is not offering definitive answers to these questions, but possible directions for the perspective's future development.This paper is primarily a product of the discussions that took place in the Social Harm stream at the American Society of Criminology 2006 meetings, Los Angeles. It was my first visit to the ASC, as well as my first visit to Los Angeles. Both experiences helped clarify my thinking on the future issues for a social harm perspective and, perhaps most importantly reinforced the importance of the emergent perspective. The ASC meetings should not have surprised me-I had been forewarned. However, there is probably no better place than the discipline's largest annual conference to confirm your suspicions about its parlous condition. Whilst the ASC has a highly organised, vibrant and energised Critical Criminology division, its activities are somewhat dwarfed by the mass of 'administrative' criminology which filled the conferences' 664 sessions. The ASC showcases 'off the peg'

Crime or social harm? A dialectical perspective

“…Pemberton [34] offers the following solution: "[A]n individual is harmed through the nonfulfilment of their needs" (p.37). In order to clarify what acts "non-fulfilment" of "needs" would capture, Pemberton advocates the use of a normative framework developed by Doyal and Gough.…”

“…In order to clarify what acts "non-fulfilment" of "needs" would capture, Pemberton advocates the use of a normative framework developed by Doyal and Gough. To illustrate its utility Pemberton [34] observes, for example, that "the extreme deprivation of food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare, education, and so on, clearly represents the non-fulfilment of Doyal and Gough's basic needs of survival/health and autonomy/learning" (p.37). While Pemberton's approach is an innovative response to a difficult problem, it nevertheless suffers from a fatal error, namely it confuses harm with injustice.…”

Quand la « délinquance des élites1 » contribue au savoir criminologique

“…Et même si la criminologie critique a élargi la question de la définition du crime et a appréhendé la justice pénale comme un objet de lutte, elle risque tout de même de valider et de légitimer les objets sur lesquels elle travaille. Le risque de substantialisation, le risque de considérer le crime comme une réalité ontologique, est toujours présent (Pemberton, 2007). C'est pourquoi, pour les zémiologues, il faut abolir la criminologie et créer une nouvelle science humaine dont l'objet central est l'analyse des conduites sociales qui génèrent des torts sociaux (Hillyard et Tombs, 2007).…”

“…Pour eux, il s'agit en effet de s'intéresser à la négligence des gouvernants, à l'indifférence morale des riches et des puissants, aux actes des grandes entreprises qui violent les règles du jeu écono-mique… (Bertrand, 2008). Nombre d'entre eux (Hillyard et Tombs, 2007 ;Pemberton, 2007 ;Reiman, 1998) associent donc « tort social » et conduites transgressives des élites.…”

Media representations of complementary and alternative medicine in the Italian press: A criminological perspective

“…For example, harm has been associated with its significance as an emotional or material negativity (Muncie 2000). In addition, harm has been categorised into physical harm, financial/economic harm, emotional/psychological harm and cultural safety harm , and conceptualised as the non-fulfilment of individual's needs (Pemberton 2007(Pemberton , 2016. Pemberton (2004Pemberton ( , 2007, moreover, insisted on criminologists looking not only at harms that are caused by people's intention, but also by indifference, which is "morally comparable" to intent when the person had the chance to change the 12 Legal paternalism provides ground for criminalising harm to the self, whereas legal moralism for violations of conventional mores or morality (as it has been for, e.g., homosexuality).…”