Violent Crime vs. Political Violence Essay Example

đź“ŚCategory: Crime, Social Issues, Violence
đź“ŚWords: 1418
đź“ŚPages: 6
đź“ŚPublished: 11 June 2022

In this paper, I will discuss what distinguishes violent crime from political violence. While doing so, we will consider when criminality should be considered a form of political violence. Afterwards we will look at how our approaches to criminality and political violence differ, and how policy creation might change if our definition of political violence becomes more inclusive. I will use academic peer-reviewed publications as evidence for the arguments made in this paper. Finally, in this paper I will consider policies for prevention of political violence, management of political violence and conflict resolution.

First, one must draw distinctions from violents crimes and political violence, and define what political violence really is. To start, one might consider political violence to be much like terrorism, in that it is defined to the relation it has to a state entity. However, I would apply political violence to a lot more than simply insurgents fighting against a state. For example, would a state entity cracking down on political opponents and insurgents not equally be considered political violence? Additionally, would a neo-Nazi massacring a group of non-white people in the name of their ideology not also be considered political violence irregardless of any state entity? I would argue that all of these things fall under the definition of political violence, and are not simply “violent crimes,” so while political violence might usually relate to a state actor, it does not always. I would argue that what makes all of these examples political and not simply violent crimes is that they engage in some form or fashion with social hierarchy. Whether it’s the social hierarchy of the established political entity of a state wielding power against political opponents, or insurgents attempting to topple an existing social hierarchy and establish a new one, or even a neo-Nazi violently enforcing the social hierarchy of white supremacy by massacring those he or she believes to be beneath them. Political violence, by my definition in this paper, is the direct engagement of an individual or group in social hierarchy with the intent to do so. This is distinguished from violent crime because while violent criminals’ actions may have political consequences, they do not have the intent of engaging in politics, so by our definition they are not committing political violence.

Criminality should only be considered political violence when the criminal has intentions of supporting or opposing existing social hierarchies. For example, in the 1960s there was a massive rise in politicization of people in America, particularly black and brown youth, and due to this, we saw the rise and formation of groups such the Black Panther Party, Young Lords, American Indian Movement (AIM), and many others. In the example of the Young Lords, they first started out as a street gang, and many of their actions would’ve fallen under the definition of ‘violent crime’. However, under Jose Cha Cha Jiminez’s leadership, the Young Lords were redefined as a civil and human rights organization inspired by the philosophy and tactics of the Black Panther Party (García 2014). The Young Lords were no longer a Puerto Rican street gang engaged in the simple violent crimes of gang violence, but rather an organization dedicated to the self-determination of Puerto Rico, Latin American and other Third World nations, and for community control over their neighborhoods (Behnken, 2016). Noble or not, the violence of the Young Lords took a political character after this transformation, and according to the leader, Jiminez, in the 2020 documentary The First Rainbow Coalition, the Young Lords were originally a gang that was breaking bottles over other gangs’ heads just to be able to go to certain bars, beaches, etc. He continues later in the film to discuss how the Young Lords then disrupted and threatened a neighborhood development group in their region of Chicago by demanding they no longer meet there if they do not have black or brown representation in their group. The Young Lords then escalated this by smashing chairs and tables and threatening the safety of those conducting the meeting, causing them to no longer use the building they were in for said meetings. This is an example of when criminality should be considered political violence, as the Young Lords used to engage in conventional crimes, whereas after the politicization of the group by Jiminez, they began to almost solely engage in political action, and consequently, political crimes. These crimes were political because they had the intent of challenging the social hierarchy of not only the Chicago political establishment but the primarily white and upper class establishment that gentrified and out-priced poor black and brown neighborhoods and increased policing presence in said neighborhoods. 

Our approaches to criminality and political violence differ by the scope of state power that is wielded to subdue both of these forces. Most criminality is generally handled at the municipal or state level, whereas political violence is usually handled at the federal level. This is because our approach to crimes is that of a threat to community safety or survival, whereas our approach to political violence is that of a threat to the state’s safety or survival. Policy creation might change if our definition of political violence becomes more inclusive by the means that what were previously considered apolitical crimes will now involve federal institutions more in the enforcing of laws and state interests over the population. Alternatively if political violence is expanded to include state violence, then policy creation would be radically different. This would potentially mean that all institutions of state violence ie. the police, the military, intelligence agencies, etc. would now have to be directly accountable to the communities they are enforcing laws in. The state is solely a political entity, so for the sake of argument, we will define the violence it uses to combat non-political crime as non-political violence. However, US policy creation would require the federal agents dispatched in Portland in the Summer of 2020, or the federal police at the Dakota access pipeline to no longer engage in violence against these groups so long as they are non-violent, as that would be included in our definition of political violence, as these groups are ostensibly political groups who are engaged in the challenging of existing social hierarchy.

I will now consider policies for prevention of political violence, management of political violence and conflict resolution. First off, we can prevent and manage what is conventionally understood as political violence by further expanding the scope and power of the intelligence agencies and the police in order to further crackdown on political dissidents before they can engage in violent activities. This would include global surveillance and new initiatives for the US military to engage in campaigns in other countries to prevent potential political violence from targeting the US. Conflict resolution could look like a policy decision designed to compromise with those who support political dissidents, whether they be domestic or international. Domestic conflict resolution could look much like the civil rights acts in the 1960s, where the government resolved the violent conflict between politically violent black groups such as the Black Panther Party against whites and the government by conceding to some of their demands. However, the government also engaged in political assassinations as part of their COINTELPRO program such as in the case of Fred Hampton (Burrough, 2016), or police raids against Black Panther headquarters (Roberts, 1969). While all of these things might be effective at preventing and managing political violence, while also succeeding at conflict resolution, they may be considered authoritarian and excessive by some.

To change the question of prevention and management of political violence, one could argue that not all political violence ought to be prevented or managed, and the question should instead be: what kind of political violence should be prevented and managed? For example, the actions of both ISIS and the YPG would both be considered political violence, however they are not equivalent. ISIS is fighting for the genocide and oppression of other groups, whereas the YPG is fighting for Kurdish liberation and self-determination while not genociding and oppressing other groups, but rather fighting alongside other groups for their own self-determination, such as the Syriac Military Council (Glioti, 2013) and other groups that are a part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). From this lense, we ought not prevent the political violence of the YPG, but rather support it, as it is in direct contradiction with the political violence of ISIS and other oppressive entities such as the Turkish and Syrian regimes. I believe the criteria we ought to use for supporting or preventing political violence is whether it wishes to dismantle social hierarchy or enforce it.

In conclusion, this paper defines political violence as violence which has the intent of supporting or opposing existing social hierarchy. In doing so, we found that criminality should be considered a form of political violence when it supports or opposes existing social hierarchy. We found that policy creation could potentially be targeted more at state violence if our definition of political violence becomes more inclusive.  Finally, this paper rejects the premise that policies ought to be aimed at prevention of political violence, and instead proposes support for political violence that seeks to dismantle social hierarchy, and prevention of violence that seeks to enforce social hierarchy.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.