Zemiology and Social Harms

Started by Erik Narramore, January 31, 2022, 12:20:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 31, 2022, 12:20:06 AM
When we refer to social harms and their relevance to the Bamber case, are we considering how Jeremy's actions (here I will presume guilt) were the result of social harms as well as resulted in social harms?

If so, then on the pre-incident side of things, we could point to the social harms caused by capitalism and a market-based economic system, which arguably (and maybe zemiologically) result in tragedies of this kind.  You could say that R v Bamber was, at root, essentially a property dispute - without wishing to be too cold or insensitive about it.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#1
January 31, 2022, 01:07:31 AM
Social Harms, capital 'S', capital 'H' - which would normally be ungrammatical and suggests use of a term of art with something specific in mind. 

Were Jeremy's actions the source of these social harms (or Social Harms)?

Jeremy is not a social institution, he is just an individual, hence the relevance of criminology (and also psychology, etc.).  I don't quite understand how zemiology comes into it unless we are considering how Jeremy's actions were the result of social harms and what those prior social harms are (as well as continuing social harms). 

On the other hand, maybe the whole incident and subsequent legal saga, including potentially a miscarriage of justice, should be treated as a potential source of social harm, rather like a malignant organisation. 
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#2
January 31, 2022, 01:08:34 AM
Should we confine ourselves to discussion of the social harms that flowed from Jeremy's actions, i.e. post-incident?

My understanding of zemiology is that it is a meta-critique of criminology: basically, it's saying that the boundaries of criminology (a fashionable term floating around the internet seems to be 'criminological imagination') are too confined and we should consider crime ontologically.  It seems, at least to me, to follow from this that a zemiological study of the Bamber case would start by considering the influence of social harms on Jeremy Bamber and how that led to his actions, and possibly could do that even if he isn't the killer (though I accept he probably was).  This would held build a critique of the criminological angle on the case.

A criminologist, depending on his school of thought (positivist, Marxist, functionalist, biosocial, or whatever), would point to factors internal and/or external to the actor and use these to explain why he is likely to have committed these deeds.  A zemiological perspective would be quite similar to positivist and Marxist schools in criminology, but it would consider how non-criminal/non-criminalised social injury/social harm might have resulted in Jeremy's actions and also what harms flowed from his actions.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#3
January 31, 2022, 01:09:16 AM
A consideration of the background social harms that led to Jeremy's actions could include a range of points.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#4
January 31, 2022, 01:09:41 AM
It occurs to me that the above could still stand as zemiological observations even if Jeremy is entirely innocent.  Maybe that's the difference between zemiology and critical criminology?
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#5
January 31, 2022, 01:10:47 AM
I suppose a discussion can only proceed once we clarify whether we are referring how Jeremy's actions (here I will presume guilt) were the result of social harms as well as how and the extent to which they resulted in social harms?

If so, then on the pre-incident side of things, we could point to the social harms caused by capitalism and a market-based economic system, which arguably (and maybe zemiologically) result in tragedies of this kind.  You could say that R v Bamber was, at root, essentially a property dispute - without wishing to be too cold or insensitive about it.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions