contact us

 

         

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

Blog

Crimcast is a virtual resource devoted to critical conversations about criminology and criminal justice issues. Our blogposts, twitter feeds, podcasts and other content provide an overview of trends, research, commentary and events of interest to criminal justice practitioners, academics and the general public. CrimCast is sponsored by The Center for Crime and Popular Culture, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY.

Filtering by Tag: religion

Female Terrorists in the United States

Staci Strobl

Crimcast sat down with Dr. Alessandra L. Gonzalez, Princeton University post-doctorate researcher, to discuss her latest work, "How Women Engage Homegrown Terrorism" (with Joshua D.  Freilich, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and Steven M. Chermak, Michigan State University) on female terrorists in the United States, published in Feminist Criminology (Volume 9, 2014).  Using the United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) Study data of homicides by far-right extremists and arsons and bombings by environmental and animal rights extremists, their analysis reveal the importance of relationships to women’s involvement in terrorism and that recruitment and opportunity differ by ideology. 

Tell us about the U. S. Extremist Crime Database (ECDB) and how it was developed.  It’s a great resource for analysis of terrorist offenders across known cases.

Drs. Freilich and Chermak created the ECDB study in 2005. Since then, the ECDB has been funded by a series of grants from the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate’s University Program Division; and Resilient Systems Division, both directly and through the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). 

The ECDB is an open source relational database that tracks violent and financial crimes by political extremists in the United States. It codes hundreds of attributes related to violent criminal incidents or financial criminal schemes, the perpetrators of these acts, their victims and targets, and the organizations and groups involved, as well as the quality of the open source information found on the case.

The research findings include that the women terrorists studied never act as lone wolves.  They also tend to be influenced by female friends or relatives to commit acts of violence-- not just male friends/lovers/husbands. This is also a new contribution to our understanding of women extremist offenders.  Did the data provide information, or can you speculate about, why these trends are occurring?  

The use of a gendered lens with which to understand pathways to homegrown radicalization sheds light on the important nuances of inter-personal relationships and social networks that have not been counted so centrally in previous terrorism studies. An inter-disciplinary approach to the study of women in terrorism points out the importance of mediating social networks on creating opportunities for motivated perpetrators.

However, there were differences by ideology and crime type and this is reflected in the social networks that enabled women to participate in either far-right extremist crimes (homicides) or eco-terrorist crimes (arsons and bombings). Similar to male terrorists, females are affected by group-level effects such as the structure of the group and methods of operation. For example, we observe that several of the victims of far-right extremists in the United States were killed not as a result of ideological forethought but more as “presented opportunities,” the unintended casualties of unstructured time by aimless youth. Several of the far-right females were homeless and on the street (four, all non-extremists). This lends evidence to view homeless females as more vulnerable to being co-opted into violent crimes although they do not believe in the ideology. Five out of 14 of the extremist perpetrators were involved in inter-gang violence or racial homicides to earn prestige within the gang. This makes the case of ideologically motivated females interesting because it might more closely approximate patterns for gang involvement. 

Of the three eco-terrorist bombings, one woman was involved with three other men and all were students at the same university, and the other two women involved in a separate incident were sisters. All three women involved with bombings had male accomplices and were ideologically motivated. Of the eco-terrorist arson incidents, seven women were repeat offenders, and five were involved in multiple offenses together. Women were not lone-wolf arsonists, and where multiple offenses occurred, there tended to be more than one female involved. So again, the story of relationships is important although it is unclear how these relationships were forged except for 

 

 

 

common interest activity groups on campus or as relatives of activists.

The data also shows that anti-abortion terrorists are overwhelmingly male.  What do you think this finding brings to frameworks for feminist criminology?

Interestingly, there were no anti-abortion victims or targets where women were involved, as opposed to various incidents where men were perpetrators of anti-abortion violent crime. We know that social relationships were essential to female involvement, and it is interesting that we found three mothers who were extremists and two other women who were expectant mothers at the time of the incident. It is possible that gender and social networks trump violent action against anti-abortion ideology so that we do not see women participate in these crimes. However, further research should continue to analyze the pathways for men who get involved in radical action in anti-abortion terrorist crimes because their involvement is just as important to understanding the lack of female involvement.

What is the connection between terrorism by definition having an ideological component, and the article’s assertion that religion did not seem to be a major factor in women’s involvement?  

Although religious ideology can be conflated with other powerful ideological beliefs, in this study, we isolate terrorist ideology from religious identity and belief. This methodological choice is data-driven. Of the female terrorists who engage homegrown terrorism in the United States, there were no open-source data available on their religious beliefs or affiliation. In addition, the women’s far-right and eco-terrorist ideologies did not access religious arguments for their political agendas when justifying their violence. Of course, it is possible for terrorist ideology to act as a substitute for religion for terrorists, but again, we find no data to support this theory.

What else can or has the ECDB been used to analyze?  

There have been many recent publications using ECDB data by my co-authors Joshua Freilich and Steven Chermak, including one in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology. The findings from ECDB data have been pathbreaking regarding the composition, methods, and reach of homegrown terrorism in the United States. However, this was the first publication using ECDB data with a focus on gender. 

What else are you working on these days? 

I have been continuing my research on gender, politics, religion, and deviance. I have a forthcoming article on the study of “Irreligiosity as Social Deviance in a Majority Muslim Context” for the journal Deviant Behavior which again analyzes the influence of gender and ideology on crime and social deviance.

picture_gonzalez2.jpg

Dr. Alessandra L. González is a Non-Resident Research Fellow at the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She received her Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in Sociology from Baylor University and received a B.A. in Sociology and Policy Studies from Rice University. She is the principal investigator of the Islamic Social Attitudes Survey Project (ISAS), a study in conjunction with Baylor’s Institute for Studies in Religion (ISR) on Islamic religiosity and social attitudes, including attitudes about women’s rights in the Arab Gulf region. Her latest book is Islamic Feminism in Kuwait: The Politics and Paradoxes (Palgrave Macmillan Press).

When Punishment Was a New and Remarkable Thing: Medieval Anglo-Saxon Responses to Crime

Staci Strobl

Crimcast caught up with Dr. Jay Paul Gates (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) to discuss his and co-editor Dr. Nicole Marafioti's (Trinity University) edited volume Capital and Corporal Punishment in Anglo-Saxon England (2014, Boydell & Brewer). In the Middle Ages, Anglo-Saxon authorities often punished lawbreakers with harsh corporal penalties, such as execution, mutilation, and imprisonment. Despite their severity, however, these penalties were not arbitrary exercises of power. Rather, they were informed by nuanced philosophies of punishment which sought to resolve conflict, keep the peace, and enforce Christian morality. The ten essays in this volume engage legal, literary, historical, and archaeological evidence to investigate the role of punishment in Anglo-Saxon society. 

What prompted your interest in Anglo-Saxon punishment and how did this volume come about? 

Our interest in the topic of capital and corporal punishment grew out of basic questions concerning how the Anglo-Saxons – who inhabited and ruled England from the fifth century through the eleventh – thought about bodies in a legal context and how the body came to carry and convey meaning. We both love Wulfstan, that quirky eleventh-century Archbishop of York. His assertion that mutilation was a merciful alternative to execution—that the law must be concerned with the soul rather than the body—kept nagging us for attention. From here, we found contributors whose interests coalesced around Anglo-Saxon England. Yet the essays in the volume go well beyond the limits of England and the Anglo-Saxon period. Early Germanic and ‘barbarian’ law provide foundations; Mosaic, Irish, and Frisian law offer sources and analogues; and post- Conquest views of Anglo-Saxon England and Anglo-Saxon history show that the Anglo-Saxons continued to have relevance and meaning well beyond 1066.

One of the most interesting ideas to come out of the volume is that the Anglo-Saxons, at least initially, didn’t have much of a concept of punishment. There were systems of law, compensation, and vengeance, but these were all concerned with the maintenance of social order and stability rather than with the desire to punish unacceptable behavior. And when we came to think about it, the very concept of punishment itself seemed odd. After all, what does it do? For example, if Nicole lops off my arm, I am far better off if she pays me compensation for it than if she is punished. I might even forego compensation to get the satisfaction of vengeance. But punishment would leave me seeming weak and certainly unsatisfied: knowing she is in prison or doing back-breaking labor on a chain-gang is not going to satisfy me the way retaliation would. I’d also be short both an arm and a cash payment.

So, how did notions of punishment develop in Anglo-Saxon societies? 

Punishment seems to have developed under the influence of two major forces, the systematization of ecclesiastical penance and the centralization of royal authority. Christian responses to wrongdoing were surprisingly consistent with secular ideas of compensation. The penance known as “sick-maintenance,” for instance, required a perpetrator to do his victim’s work for him until he recovered—regardless of whether the injury was intentional or accidental. This was certainly good for social stability (the injury is compensated, the attacker shows he’s sorry, and no one needs to take vengeance), but there was also a real incentive to perform penance because it was good for the soul. The centralization of royal power also aimed to discourage vengeance and socially destabilizing actions. In fact, the earliest Anglo-Saxon punishments were designed to give people a chance to cool off and accept compensation in place of vengeance. Punishment becomes a new and remarkable thing, and kings only gradually assumed the right and responsibility of fixing other people’s injuries. It was only toward the end of the Anglo-Saxon period that kings claimed the authority to act on the body of a subject—a development that would have an important impact on post-Conquest English law.

 

 
Jay Paul Gates, John Jay College of Criminal Justice   

Jay Paul Gates, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

 

What ideas about punishment described in the volume appear to be persisting into modern Anglo-Saxon-influenced societies?  

The first point to note is that Anglo-American law, at least through the twentieth century, was very much influenced by the laws penned by Archbishop Wulfstan in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. They were first taken up by the Danish conqueror king, Cnut, and then by the Normans after the 1066 Conquest. In those early laws we see a real tension between the need for the threat of punishment as a means of deterrence and penitential punishment as a means of rehabilitating the criminal, except in the most extreme cases. Such attitudes toward the role of punishment in the criminal justice system seem still to be hotly debated. Similarly, the restrictions on felons in modern American law, even after they have served their sentences, recalls the Anglo-Saxon notion of the guilty as being permanently marked, whether through the elimination of their legal status (oath-worthiness) or through mutilation. However, what seems to have slipped into the background in the modern discussion, and which is very much worth foregrounding again, is the medieval concern not just with punishing the perpetrator but making whole the victim.

What can this volume, grounded in the humanities, teach social scientists and criminologists about approaching studies of contemporary punishment? 

As we hear the modern debate, there are three main functions of punishment: deterrence, vengeance, and rehabilitation. To the medieval mind, I don’t know that there was quite so great a distance between these functions as there is for us, and it is perhaps worth returning to the mutually supporting roles of these functions in modern discussions. An example of this may come in the form of compensation laws and “sick-maintenance.” These two related legal categories are fundamentally concerned with how to make whole a victim. That is, after one person wounded another, he had to pay compensation for the injury to the victim (the compensation tariffs of Anglo-Saxon law remain the foundation for workers’ compensation tables) and then do the work that the injured person was unable to do until he had healed sufficiently. Certainly there is a sense of vengeance enacted on the man who must do the work of the person he injured—it must be a slight to one’s honor and sense of self to serve someone whom he had wanted badly enough to attack. Yet there is a process for the injured party to see his attacker work for his benefit and make good the injury. Through such a process there is a real possibility of the cooling of tempers, of reconciliation between the two parties, and of rehabilitating the public peace that was broken as well. Something like this has been tried in the restorative justice after the genocidal violence in Rwanda. But perhaps looking to the medieval understandings of punishment would bring punishment and restorative justice into more regular discourse within less extraordinary criminal justice processes.

What avenues of future research will this volume open?

At least one suggestion has been that the idea of crime might need to be re-thought. After all, if penance is concerned with sin and if vengeance and compensation are concerned with injury, what defines crime? What makes crime its own category of wrong and how might it be punished? 

Additionally, there is a focus on men in this volume, simply because so many of our sources represent injury as a predominantly masculine concern. However, it is also important to consider women’s roles in punishment. How involved were women in imposing or mitigating punishment? How were they punished for offenses they committed, and what exactly were those offenses? Although evidence for female misconduct is more elusive, there is valuable work to be done in this area. 

Contributors to the volume include Valerie Allen, Jo Buckberry, Daniela Fruscione, Jay Paul Gates, Stefan Jurasinski, Nicole Marafioti, Daniel O'Gorman, Lisi Oliver, Andrew Rabin, and Daniel Thomas.

“I Will Join With You in the Order of Marriage,” and Also With You

Nickie Phillips

Bigamy Prosecutions in Late Medieval France

mcdougall

Crimcast sat down with Dr. Sara McDougall, John Jay College of Criminal Justice professor and author of Bigamy and Christian Identity in Late Medieval Champagne (2012), to discuss her book’s fascinating glimpse into decisions to prosecute bigamy in medieval northern France. Her archival research into court documents from 15th century Troyes uncovered that men, not women, were more likely to be prosecuted for bigamy and that the prosecutions were an attempt to reaffirm Christian moral order in a time of social dislocation after the Hundred Years’ War. Northern France, ahead of its time in a prosecutorial spirit that would characterize the later Inquisition, zealously regulated itself in order to be more pleasing to God.

You describe the prosecutions as a kind of “moral panic” expressed by some clergy in the area. How was this sense of moral panic conveyed in the court records? What type of court was it?

Local religious authorities throughout Catholic Europe had what was called "spiritual jurisdiction" over the communities they served. This jurisdiction included the power to prosecute moral offences, crimes involving members of the clergy, and crimes involving either sacred spaces or sacred things. As marriage counted among the most sacred things of the Catholic Church, bishops in many parts of Europe claimed the power to regulate marriages. While all of these courts operated according to the rules of canon law - the law of the Catholic Church - regional differences abounded. In some places, church courts came to operate quite aggressively to regulate moral behavior, while in other places - probably most places - church courts essentially operated only in response to a request from an accuser or complainant.

The bishop's court in Troyes was exceptionally proactive. They employed a team of trained jurists who acted as public prosecutors, as notaries, and also as quasi-police officers to investigate, collect depositions, and arrest and detain suspected offenders.

I argue that they did so out of a shared desire to reform behavior in their diocese, out of a belief that the devastating warfare and disruptions they suffered from in the fifteenth century were due to divine punishment for the sinful behavior in the community. Acting upon their legal and theological training, they prosecuted hundreds of men and women for alleged sexual offences and violations of marriage law, as well as blasphemy and violence. They also targeted scapegoats, those they considered to have committed the crimes they deemed most injurious to the salvation of souls in the community. These "worst offenders" according to their assessments, were priests who had fought as brigands and male bigamists. Similar "moral panic" is seen in other parts of France at the same time, and with different targets, such as witches.

What were some of the descriptions of punishments meted out for bigamy at the time? Were public denunciation and humiliation also important aspects of this moral panic?

Public punishment was absolutely an essential tool. The court regularly subjected male bigamists and others who they found to be guilty of the most serious offences, to public exposure, tying them by their wrists to the ladder of the scaffold in front of the cathedral on Sundays and feast days, the days in which the largest numbers of people would see their shame. The court also subjected these "worst offenders" to imprisonment, with sentences usually ranging from a month to a few years. If short, these sentences could nevertheless prove deadly, as conditions in the prison were less than ideal. These sentences were exceptional. For the vast majority of offenders, the court punished them with a fine, usually a small one.

The book explores the idea that marriage was so sacred to people in France at this time that they would go to great lengths to be married—multiple times. Tell us how this came to be the case.

sara cover

Previously, scholars usually assumed that people in most of medieval Europe did not care a great deal about marriage. If their marriages went badly, these scholars thought, people would just work out some kind of arrangement, mutually or unilaterally, separating themselves and occasionally taking up with new partners who they could not legally marry. This certainly seems to be common in some parts of Italy, as Emlyn Eisenach has shown, and probably in Spain as well. However, the work of scholars such as David d'Avray - whose work is really quite riveting and convincing - has demonstrated that in much of medieval Europe, by the mid-fourteenth and especially the fifteenth century many people came to care a great deal about marriage, for a number of reasons. Marriage had become greatly prized in medieval society. Marriage not only provided legitimacy for children - which allowed them to inherit lands and titles from their parents - it also promoted both social status and religious status. People came to believe that a married woman assumed a position of honor and respect in a community; she also helped to ensure her salvation by marrying. Men, too, assumed positions of social and religious honor by taking wives and raising families, by acting as responsible household head, charged with working towards his own salvation but also that of his wife and children. As marriage became seen as providing these things, particularly in places such as Northern France, more and more people whose first marriages had fallen apart for some reason seem to have decided that they wanted to be married to their new partner regardless of the fact that it was technically illegal to do so. They wanted God's blessing on their union, they wanted the legitimacy marriage accorded children (and even if courts found a couple guilty of bigamy they usually treated the children as legitimate, in a rather generous presumption that at least one of the parties to the marriage could have thought it was a valid marriage), and they wanted to be able to live together without shame, without rebuke from their neighbors.

The fact that more men than women were prosecuted for bigamy is a finding that challenges conventional notions of how western patriarchy operates. In a Bostonia article, you are quoted as referring to it as a kind of “useful misogyny.” Why weren’t women prosecuted more often? Were they getting a big break or might there have been informal sanctions waiting for them?

As so often the case throughout history, courts in medieval Europe punished men far more often and more harshly than women. While we might assume that bigamy would prove an exception to this rule - as would a crime like witchcraft or infanticide, typically classic "female crimes" - in fact it did not. Many women committed bigamy, remarrying after either abandoning their husbands or being abandoned by them, but did not face the same punishment that a man who did the same thing would face. Women generally paid small fines, if anything, for their bigamy, while male bigamists were subject to public punishment and imprisoned. This has, I argue, precisely to do with the "useful misogyny" you mentioned. As the court officials - and many people at the time - thought that men were more responsible and more rational than women, almost anything a woman did was not really her fault, but the fault of a man instead. Her father, husband, or lover should have kept her from wrongdoing, and if she committed some crime like bigamy, it was really the men in her life who were to blame. This misogyny, of course, is insulting, but it certainly worked to these women's advantage.

What are you working on these days? Are there more stories of scandalous behavior and colorful prosecutions to be found in medieval archives?

I am currently working on two different, related projects. One is a sort of cultural history of adultery in late-medieval France, an effort to address all the different ways in which people thought about and responded to adultery, in and out of court. There are quite a few scandalous stories I could tell - stay tuned! I am also researching illegitimate children, to try and find out more about them. We know very little about what people did about illegitimate children - how often they may have practiced abortion or infanticide, or abandoned the children, and also what they did with illegitimate children they decided to keep. We do not know what it meant for these children to be known as illegitimate throughout their lives, if indeed they were so stigmatized.

archive

This is the first in a 5-part series appearing throughout 2013 focusing on the often game-changing discoveries that come out of archival work in the realm of police, courts, and corrections.