Criminalising the right to hunt: European law perspectives on anti-hunting legislation

The existence of large hunting/shooting communities across Europe is sufficiently widespread that hunters can be classed as a distinct social group or subculture. Hunters are nevertheless not legally recognized as a distinct protected group even where they are granted considerable recognition within legislative and policy discourse related to their interests. Widespread opposition to anti-hunting legislation across Europe suggests a shared resistance to legislation and public policy detrimental to their ‘sport’ among hunters and those engaged in animal harm linked to traditional fieldsports and hunting interests. Socio-legal discourse, however, suggests that states have not only a right, but sometimes an actual obligation, to introduce laws that serve a utilitarian purpose; even where these marginalize certain interest groups, e.g. hunters This article examines these conflicts through analysis of the UK’s Hunting Act 2004 and challenges to its introduction via European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) action; particularly arguments that hunting falls within Article 8 (right to a private life) Article 11 (freedom of association/assembly) and Article 14 (freedom from discrimination). The ECtHR’s jurisprudence concludes that hunting is an activity that is only protected by human rights law in specific circumstances. Accordingly, employing a green criminological perspective, this article concludes that European states are entitled to regulate or criminalize hunting where they consider there are legitimate animal protection or moral reasons to do so, even in the face of significant opposition from hunting communities. Thus states may also legitimately criminalize and prosecute illegal hunting activity even where this might be socially constructed as resistance to anti-hunting legislation

Contemporary perspectives on environmental enforcement

Green criminology allows for the study of environmental and criminal laws, environmental criminality which includes widespread environmental harm, and the abuse and exploitation of nonhuman animals. Yet many environmental crimes are not the core focus of criminal justice systems or public concern about crime and safety despite having the potential to cause far wider social harm and a large number of deaths. Instead much environmental enforcement is regulatory or administrative in nature, particularly in respect of corporate environmental wrongdoing, which is often categorized as accidental wrongdoing, largely considered to be the fault of “rogue” employees or the unintended consequences of governance failures. Unlike traditional street and property crimes, environmental crimes (and environmental harms) frequently have long-lasting and irreversible effects. This raises questions about the effectiveness of justice systems in dealing with environmental offenders and the damage they cause. This paper explores the effectiveness of contemporary environmental enforcement mechanisms. In particular, the paper explores the extent to which they such mechanism are equipped to deal with corporate environmental offending which in many cases is a consequence of the operation of neoliberal markets. This paper examines whether the drive for profits and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment and exploitation of natural resources create a situation where corporate environmental crime is a foreseeable and even natural/inevitable consequence. Where that is the case and where corporations have the resources to continue paying fines and the expertise to navigate regulatory justice systems, an alternative to the law enforcement “detection apprehension and punishment” approach might be required

Preventing wildlife crime: contemporary issues in enforcement and policy perspectives

This chapter considers wildlife crime in respect of poaching and retaliatory killings of animals. In rural and urban fringe environments such as those that exist in the United Kingdom, issues such as badger baiting, illegal hunting and hare coursing can have devastating impact

Rural crime and policing

This chapter considers questions of rurality in the context of rural crime. Law and criminology debate what constitutes rural crime and how it should be addressed. This chapter critically evaluates different perspectives on rural crime and its law enforcement and policy problems. One definition of rural crime is that of “Small towns, farming communities and the open countryside” whereas governmental bodies like the Scottish Executive have used definitions of Accessible Rural (populations’ small than 10,000 and within 30 minute drive of a larger settlement) and Remote Rural (populations smaller than 10,000 and more than 30 minute drive of larger settlement). However, from an operational policing perspective, rural crime can be simply any crime that happens in a rural area, or crimes that are rural specific (e.g. poaching, wildlife crime such as badger baiting). This chapter critically evaluates the different definitions of rural crime and the impact that these have on law enforcement and policy perspectives. It concludes that while politicians and other policymakers operate according to a definition of rural crime that defines it as crime occurring in rural areas and affecting the wider rural community, NGOs and some practitioners view rural crime as predominantly crime affecting wildlife and its habitats. As a result, the specific challenges of rural policing (e.g. generally lower resources, wider geographical areas to cover) remain both operational policing and policy problems and the link between rural crimes and other forms of offending are not fully addressed in policy or practice. This chapter thus formulates a new definition of rural crime recommending an inclusive approach to rurality in both offending and type of crime

A manifesto for wildlife law reform: assessing the Law Commission’s proposals for wildlife law reform

This article assesses the Law Commission's proposals for wildlife law reform in England and Wales which seek to simplify and consolidate wildlife law into a single integrated wildlife management bill. The article identifies that while there is general agreement that there are inconsistencies and loopholes contained within UK wildlife law it is often in its enforcement that problems are experienced rather than the legislation itself presenting the main difficulties. The article concludes that while the Law Commission takes a pragmatic approach to wildlife law reform unless the specific nature of wildlife criminality and enforcement problems are also addressed, the reforms may improve UK wildlife law but ultimately prove ineffective

Book review: Nickie D. Phillips and Staci Strobl, Comic Book Crime: Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Comic Book Crime examines crime, justice and law and order as depicted in American comic books, while simultaneously examining the manner in which complex criminological perspectives often manifest themselves as retributive or incapacitation narratives in popular fiction and media discourse. While comics scholarship is a relatively under-developed area of criminological enquiry, This article examines Phillips and Strobl's book which effectively straddles the divide between cultural criminology and the ‘law and literature’ movement. The book tells the story of an industry that has grown from its pulp fiction beginnings to become a primary source of material for mass market crime narratives, especially Hollywood cinema, while remaining true to its crime story origins

Policing wildlife: perspectives on criminality in wildlife crime

This article presents green criminology research on wildlife law enforcement in the UK, an area of insecurity both about its place within criminal justice and about how it should be resourced and laws enforced. Wildlife crime predates the Government’s Big Society in being primarily driven by Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who shape the public policy and police response to wildlife crime. NGOs frequently argue for a strengthened wildlife enforcement regime with tougher sentences for wildlife offenders. Yet this article contests the perception of inadequate wildlife laws and the need for a more punitive regime, arguing that inherent enforcement problems undermine an otherwise adequate legislative regime. It offers a new typology of offenders, arguing that changes to legislation and a more punitive regime are inadequate solutions to address wildlife crime levels unless the existence of different types of offender and criminal behaviour are recognised and addressed in policy and enforcement practice

Green criminology: shining a critical lens on environmental harm

Green criminology provides for inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary engagement with environmental crimes and wider environmental harms. Green criminology applies a broad ‘‘green’’ perspective to environmental harms, ecological justice, and the study of environmental laws and criminality, which includes crimes affecting the environment and non-human nature. Within the ecological justice and species justice perspectives of green criminology there is a contention that justice systems need to do more than just consider anthropocentric notions of criminal justice, they should also consider how justice systems can provide protection and redress for the environment and other species. Green criminological scholarship has, thus, paid direct attention to theoretical questions of whether and how justice systems deal with crimes against animals and the environment; it has begun to conceptualize policy perspectives that can provide contemporary ecological justice alongside mainstream criminal justice. Moving beyond mainstream criminology’s focus on individual offenders, green criminology also explores state failure in environmental protection and corporate offending and environmentally harmful business practices. A central discussion within green criminology is that of whether environmental harm rather than environmental crime should be its focus, and whether green ‘‘crimes’’ should be seen as the focus of mainstream criminal justice and dealt with by core criminal justice agencies such as the police, or whether they should be considered as being beyond the mainstream. This article provides an introductory overview that complements a multi- and inter-disciplinary article collection dedicated to green criminological thinking and research

See no evil, print no evil: the criminalization of free speech in DMZ

This article examines contemporary notions on free speech and the criminalisation of journalistic expression since 9/11, via discussion of Brian Wood’s DMZ comics (DC Vertigo). Free speech and the importance of a free press are widely accepted notions, yet journalistic and artistic freedom is arguably under attack in our post-9/11 world (Ash, 2016; Article 19, 2007). State responses to global terror threats have criminalised free speech, particularly speech seen as ‘glorifying’ or ‘supporting’ terrorism via anti-terror or restrictive media laws. This article examines these issues via DMZ ’s discussion of a second American civil war in which freedom of the press has all but disappeared, arguing that DMZ ’s ‘War on Terror’ narrative and depiction of controlled news access serve as allegories for contemporary free speech restrictions. DMZ illustrates contemporary concerns about a perceived social problem in its representation of corruption, abuse of power and restrictions on the public’s right to know

The beginning of the end? The International Court of Justice's decision on Japanese Antarctic whaling

This article assessing the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) decision on Japanese Antarctic whaling. Despite a moratorium on whaling agreed in 1986, Japan has continued to grant permits for 'scientific whaling' allowing its ships to kill whales due to provisions in the International Whaling Convention that would allow such activity. However, environmentalists have long maintained that Japan has continued its commercial whaling program, exploiting a loophole in the whaling convention in order to do so. This article is a preliminary assessment of the ICJ's judgment which concluded that Japan's whaling program was not being carried out for scientific purposes