ABSTRACT
The recent extension of criminological focus to harms against the environment and animals other than humans may be referred to as ‘greening’ (e.g. Beirne and South 2007). This ‘environmental criminology’ approach (see Box 7.1) remains small and in its infancy, and may be in conflict with mainstream criminology’s distinct lack of interest in, for example, offences against animals other than humans (Cazaux 2007; Mailley and Clarke 2008). However, it would seem that conventional criminology may have something to contribute to a green agenda (White 2008). This is also recognised by some conservation scientists, as seen in this quotation from Ferraro (2005) in response to similar calls from Smith and Walpole (2005): A note about terminology
Criminology: Following White (2008), I will refer to criminology dealing with environmental issues as ‘environmental’ (or on occasion ‘green’) criminology. To avoid confusion, that specific field of criminology that focuses upon the role of environments, situations and opportunity – often also called ‘environmental criminology’, will herein be referred to as place-based criminology, while the underpinning theories of this approach will be referred to as opportunity theories. Overall, such approaches are considered part of ‘conventional criminology’ (as distinct from green criminology).
Crime science: This term is often credited to journalist Nick Ross and is synonymous with the work carried out by the UCL (University College London) Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science. This approach is predominantly focused on prevention and policy-relevant analysis. It draws heavily on place-based criminology, but also many other disciplines (such as geography, psychology and physical sciences), taking a ‘scientific approach’ to the study of crime phenomena and ways to reduce them (UCL Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science 2008).
Philosophy: Three distinctive perspectives of ecophilosophy have been identified (Halsey and White 1998; White 2007, 2008): anthropocentric, ecocentric and biocentric. These are, respectively, human-, socio-ecological- and species-centred approaches. Connected to these, White (2008) refers to three green theoretical frameworks: environmental rights and environmental justice, ecological citizenship and ecological justice, and animal rights and species justice. These approaches will be referred to in this chapter, particularly in consideration of defining ‘harm’.
Smith & Walpole point to a long-known, but persistent, problem within the field of biodiversity conservation: the appalling paucity of rigorous theory and well designed, empirical analyses of (1) the driving forces of ecosystem and species decline and (2) the relative effectiveness of interventions aimed at reversing this decline. Unless well-trained social scientists are encouraged by conservation scientists to take an interest in the global decline of biodiversity, we will make little progress in stemming this decline.
(Ferraro 2005: 258–59)