A brief review of its use and effectiveness
The word ‘war’ for any nation signifies the danger or uncertain situation imposed upon it by another nation or army. Acknowledging that the nation is in war, calls upon its citizens to do all they can individually and collectively to help the country fight the war. For the citizens, war and war threat situations have been seen to induce a sense of patriotism and unity, in the face of the common enemy. This is exactly what the politicians and law enforcement people seek to leverage by raising war rhetoric in crime prevention. War rhetoric is increasingly resorted to as a means of defeating crime, despite the evident ineffectiveness of it. Typically wars have been fought against proper nouns (Germany, Japan etc.) for some reason or the other, and generally the losing one surrendered signing a declaration of not repeating it again. However wars against common nouns (crime, corruption, drugs) have been less successful as these opponents never give up (Grenville, 2002, p34). The contemporary war on terrorism also falls into this category. The term ‘war on crime’ has been commonly used by politicians and law enforcement as an opportunity to pursue, isolate and ultimately eliminate criminal elements in our society.
The war on crime is implemented through strategies like profiling, undercover operations, surveillance, searches, raids etc. Politicians and the law enforcement community reinforce the image of police officers as being locked in combat with criminals who are sophisticated and high-tech. These criminals are portrayed as being more in number than the police, with a desperate intent to unleash a deadly force, which the police is trying to thwart (Perron, n.d). The irony of the war is that failures and setbacks are reflected as a need to strengthen the force and the might of the authorities rather than to consider strategic, policy based approaches. With crime prevention increasingly seeking war rhetoric, the society need to urgently look into its effectiveness. War rhetoric in crime prevention definitely brings in public support for the actions of the authorities, and in fact makes their tasks easier. However does this war rhetoric in crime prevention in the best interests of the society?.
The rhetoric of war is directed not just at violent crimes, as crimes that don’t involve violence too can have devastating impact of a considerable scale. Such wars are often declared as a knee jerk reaction when the situation is suddenly realized as being serious. In the mid 1990s, corruption became a prominent issue in the global agenda with the UN and the organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) declaring a war on corruption, taking extreme steps to stop bribery and extortion. The World Bank had in 2004 estimated that bribes received by public officials throughout the world were about $1 trillion every year (Heineman et al., 2006, p115). The multi-faceted problem of corruption was recognized as undermining international development programs. International assistance was affected due to massive embezzlement and extortion by officials in recipient nations.
The use of war rhetoric in crime is intended to create a psyche among the people that the evil has to be defeated at whatever costs it takes and it is for the people to support the government in whatever way necessary. In 2006, when violent crimes surged in South Africa, the Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula met senior police officials. Violence had become the single biggest crime threat in South Africa, with people feeling unsafe in their very homes and their day-to-day activity being impacted. Violent crimes threaten the fabric of any society, be it organized crime or spontaneous crime. The strategic meeting was against the backdrop of several high-profile gun battles and innumerable celebrity and police deaths. Subsequent to the meeting, Nqakula announced that the government would undertake a six month war with more police on the streets, road blocks and search operations. He assured the people that the national blitz could make South African homes and streets safer (Africa News Service, 2006). It was also emphasized that the only way for the government to win the war, was to reduce the opportunities for criminals to operate, which was almost impossible. Gaining the public trust and better intelligence was also vital to winning the war against crime.
A similar scenario was evident globally, particularly in the US after the September 9 terror attacks. Subsequent to 9/11, the landscape of US politics within the country and abroad has been dominated by a sense of insecurity that a disaster, terror or death could strike at any moment. This sense of uncertainty encompasses terrorist attacks to anthrax, from the war in Afghanistan to military invasion of Iraq. A common perception among politicians, religious leaders, media persons and even academicians is that the terror has caught up with America. This is to indicate that enemies from beyond the American borders have begun to attack America, tampering with its sense of security and certainty (Debrix, 2005, 1157 – 1172). By stating that terror has caught up with America, one means that America and its countrymen have now become a part of the terror. When terror takes control of the body, the body begins to confront the terror, by exhibiting terror. Many public figures have thus argued that the US has to become synchronous with terror and has no other options. Thus, since 9/11 new concepts of national identity, geopolitical security and new discourses of war have been produced (Kristeva, 1982, p1).
The incidents of 9/11 had a huge bearing on how the world went about. Home security was radically transformed overnight for many nations, when the world suddenly realized the potential scale of damage terrorism could wield. The rhetoric of ‘war on terror’ raised the effects of war rhetoric to never before levels. This was primarily because new ways of terror can destroy unconventional targets, in the course of which, the nation could be paralyzed. Terrorists are often desperate to strike an information infrastructure attack as major breakdowns can produce large scale economic and operational damages (Taylor et al., 2006, p23-25). Several vital institutions and infrastructure in the US remain as vulnerable targets for terrorists which easily include schools, medical care systems, chemical and industrial plants etc. By resorting to cyber terrorism, terrorists can gain access and control of important information infrastructures. Nations like the US that are highly infrastructure reliant are more prone to cyber terrorism, given the stake involved with a successful strike. Communication networks, educational and medical databases, e-commerce, digital libraries are all potential targets for a cyber attack. Sectors like banking and finance, oil and gas distribution, transportation, water and electricity supply, and emergency services can be defined as the virtual life support of the nation. Also a successful attack on one could disrupt the operation of the other (National Research Council, 2002). All these have no doubt been instrumental for a war cry and subsequent public support against terror.
For decades American criminal law has waged several wars beginning with Robert Kennedy’s war on organized crime, Lyndon’s war on poverty, crime and disorder, Nixon’s war on drugs and the recent war on terrorism (Dubber, 2001). Former President George Bush in his state of the union address on January 20, 2004 noted that many people in the US wanted to know if the country is really on war (Bruce, 2004). They perceive terrorism more as a crime and that it is something for the law enforcement to act on. President Bush added that subsequent to the 9/11 attacks, it is no longer sufficient to serve legal papers on the enemies, who had declared a war on the country and the country was now at war. A high priority initiative can no longer be merely an initiative if it has immense national concerns. He noted that when the issue is so paramount, only a coward will refuse to call it a war. There are clear indications that the presidency is inclined to war talk with the martial rhetoric permitting the president to claim the mystique of a commander-in-chief, calling on the public to sacrifice for the nation. Although many people would disagree the president’s contention of war, many other would support the idea that the country is already at war (Kerry, 2004). The impact of the rhetoric is such that it would be almost impossible for the subsequent president to nullify this position. Professors Tribe and Gudridge opine that with time, the country would be increasingly attracted to the tough talk strategy (Tribe & Gudridge, 2004). A culture of war rhetoric in crime epitomizing the president at the helm was already underway.
The deployment of rhetoric is clearly evident in the functioning of the government organs. The executive, legislative and the judiciary resort or respond to war rhetoric in varied ways, depending on the unfolding situations. However at every stage it is reflective of the pulse of the public. While the president and the Congress are empowered by the constitution to declare a war, the judiciary has the responsibility to tell the Congress and the president, as to what a war is, and when the consent of the Congress is necessary (Robert et al., 2003). However given the recent developments, no one seems to expect the judiciary to intervene in the question of ‘war’. With the court centered tradition paving the way, future presidents can exploit the rhetoric of war (Hendrickson, 2002). The ‘war on’ rhetoric is in fact used by governments to argue that a court must adopt its views of the constitution, given the background of the war being waged. The government also resorts to this language to negate claims that the authorities had exceeded their limits or rights. However attorneys for the government rarely argue in courts for more police authority based on ‘war on drugs’ or ‘war on terror’. The federal courts associated the ‘war on’ hypothesis when its rulings was connected with the Fourth Amendment. It had been observed that the federal courts had used the term in condoning government conduct in about 86.8% of the times. The language was used only in about 13.2% of the times to approve the government conduct (Margaret, 2012, p27). With the courts being largely reluctant to actively police the constitutional boundary, the president’s unilateral declaration would be based on the public understanding and acknowledgement.
The ancient Roman advocate Cicero had remarked that ‘the law is silent during war’. The concept of war rhetoric primarily seeks to overlook police excesses and non-compliance, wanting the public to only focus on the threat faced, and end the threat by supporting the actions of the authorities. The war on crime had not only been unusual, but also less successful, given the fact that its causalities has actually contributed to its success. Incapacitating millions of criminals, some even through death or life imprisonment, overcrowded prisons requiring huge budgets are only some of these causalities (Conforti, 1991). The increased use of militaristic rhetoric in the war on drugs by politicians and the law enforcement personnel goes much behind the metaphorical use of ‘war’. The language is becoming more literal which is in fact worrying. War and its rhetoric create legal norms and the interpretation of law is influenced by language and politics. War rhetoric is an important aspect of political rhetoric that can create or destroy our realities as political rhetoric is inherently directed at changing the present circumstances.
An important aspect of this war on crime is that though it is waged on behalf of crime victims, it is primarily a war on victimless crimes. Policing human threats is much different from punishing persons since police regimes only eliminate or minimize threats rather than punish. It more resembles like implementing environmental regulations of hazardous waste than the punishments of crime justice system (Foucault, 1991). With the war on crime fought on various fronts and with all types of weapons, draconian laws had been introduced together with a greater reliance on capital punishment (Drubber, 1995). With the war on crime being actively picked up by the media, failures make up for big news. With increasing criminal violence despite an all-out war to eradicate it, the failures and shortcomings lead to calls for expansion and more rigorous prosecution than for abandonment of the war campaign.
There is no doubt that with developing technology and the shrinking world, opportunities for crimes would only be increasing. Criminal justice systems in general and the penal institutions in particular are already buckling under pressure to even sustain its operations. The courts have been overworked and jails are overcrowded, and crime rhetoric can only add to the woes. Justifying the use of torture among apprehended criminals, denying fundamental human rights in the name of war is detrimental to the larger interest of the society which the authorities think they are improving. With regard to terrorism, although the UN is spearheading the fight against terrorism (Danja, 2011, 107), it has always emphasized that anti-terrorism should always go hand-in-hand with human rights. The liberal use of war rhetoric by political and criminal justice authorities raises the psyche of the public, on which the validity of the entire war theory rests.
There needs to be increased public awareness on the need and effectiveness of war rhetoric. To better understand the war on crime, one needs to go deeper into the sensational violent crimes suffered by murders, kidnappers, rapists etc. (Dubber, 1995). It is in these depths of criminal law in full action does one observe the alienation of several thousands of dangerous criminals, however with no human victims. Penal policing is directed between the state and the threats (Westervelt, 2000) because by the instant, a crime occurs; the machinery to identify and eliminate crime has failed. Any further action by the police in this regard is only to prevent further threat. Studies have already shown the ineffectiveness of the penal systems, emphasizing that social initiatives like community based corrections, employment, rehabilitation, social connectedness contribute more to crime reduction and favorable recidivism rates. It is very important for future studies to investigate that actual impact of war rhetoric in crime prevention, so that politicians can reconsider their decision to raise a war cry, whenever they decide to raise one.
References
Africa News Service, 2006. The War On Crime. Global Reference on the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources. July 11, 2006
Bruce, A., 2004. This is not a war, The Yale Law Journal June 2004: 1871
Conforti, B., 1991. Non-coercive sanctions in the United Nations Charter: Some lessons from the Gulf War, 2 European Journal of International Law 110.
Danja. B., 2011. Terrorism as an international crime: the definitional problem. Eyes on the International Criminal Court 8(1); 107
Debrix, F., 2005. Discourses of War, Geographies of Abjection: reading contemporary American ideologies of terror. Third World Quarterly, 26(7):1157 – 1172
Dubber, D, M., 1995. Recidivist Statutes as Arational Punishment, Buffalo Law Review (43):689.
Dubber, D.M., 2001. Policing Possession: The War on Crime and the End of Criminal Law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 91 (4): 831-835
Foucault, M., 1991. The Foucault effect; in Burchell, Gordon, C & Miller, P (eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality; University of Chicago Press
Grenville, B., 2002. The Wrong War Foreign Affairs 81(4): p34.
Heineman Jr., Ben W., and Heimann.F., 2006. The Long War Against Corruption. Foreign Affairs 85.3: 115
Hendrickson, R.C., 2002. The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers 3 Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press,
Kerry, J., 2004. Fighting a Comprehensive War on Terrorism, Remarks at the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations, University of California at Los Angeles (Feb. 27, 2004)
Kristeva, J., 1982. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection, New York: Columbia University Press, 1982, p1
Margaret, R.., 2012. The 'war on terror' and the war on the Fourth Amendment: Tales from a flawed hypothesis, Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, p27
National Research Council, 2002. The role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism. The National Academic Press. Washington D.C
Perron, B.A., n.d. The Crime controls and the due process models http://www.defenseinvestigator.com/article10.html> [Accessed October 30, 2013]
Robert C. and Siegel, Reva B. 2003. Protecting the Constitution from the People: Juricentric Restrictions on Section Five Power, Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 78(1) Article 3.
Taylor R.W Caeti, T. J., Loper, K., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J., 2006. Digital crime and digital terrorism. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall; pp23-25
Tribe L, H., &. Gudridge, P.O. , (2004) The Anti-Emergency Constitution, The Yale Law Journal. 113:1801
Westervelt, E., 2000. Philadelphia’s crackdown on criminals who possess illegal guns. Morning Edition, National Public Radio, Mar. 23, 2000
