Critically evaluate the proposition that states are the worst perpetrators of terror ( criminology)

in the essay :

define the states in relation both crime and terror: corruption and abuse of power; state corporate crime; environmental crime forms; state agency crime ( corruption of police, government agens more hidden, form of interegation, torture); state terrorism; torture and crimes against the person; war crimes; genocide; political economy and crime ( how states make explict decisions attached to human lives)...
Crime, Terrorism and the State
Defining the State as criminal
 Crimes committed by, or with the complicity, of the state, the government or her agents i.e. those acting on her behalf or with her authority (Green and Ward, 2004). In some sense these are the worse of all  crimes those which may not be defined as crimes under criminal law but are most harmful and importantly are committed often against the most vulnerable by the most powerful and critically, by those entrusted to protect them. Modern states kill, harm and rob on a scale unimaginable and indeed unquantifiable  deaths in war, murdered by governments, judicially (and extra-judicially) executed, assassinations, disappearances etc. Also harms caused by government policies and actions or failures to act  not just physical harms but social, economic, psychological. Neglect, corruption, abuse& How then can states define themselves as  criminal ? According to international norms. HRs ICCPR, ICC etc. Limited liability  popular/public opinion, press/media attention, economic sanctions, boycotts, lost of trade. Also through universal rights and harms. We can define it as  state organisational deviance involving the violation of human rights  including three concepts  state ,  organisational deviance and  human rights .
The modern nation state   coercive and self-seeking entrepreneurs (Tilley, 1985). State s claim monopolies e.g. on use of force. Therefore public power, mechanisms, structures, agencies and agents. Private/public, civil and political.
Organisational deviance is breaking or norms or rules  not a crime because not necessarily breaking criminal code or having a sanction. Organisational goals and operative intent. Not a unitary body.  Goal-driven, instrumentally rational nature of organisational deviance (Kauzlarich and Kramer (1998).
Not simply the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) but the underlying principles (Schwendingers). Namely,  human beings have certain needs that are fundamental in the sense that without them they cannot be effective purposive agents, able to pursue their chosen goals and participate in society (Green and Ward, 2004); basic freedom from physical restraint and pain, access to food, shelter and clothes; civil and political rights to education, opportunity etc. However, not all deprivations of rights constitute a  crime . Rather these are social harms.

Corruption and abuse of power
Political and administrative corruption and abuse of power is often equated to  political white-collar crime widely defined as  the abuse of public office for private gain . What defines corruption from other forms of official deviance is that there is some clandestine or illicit social exchange  bribery, favouritism, cronyism, embezzlement,  perks , gerrymandering, clientelism, patrimonialism.
Corruption as means   an alternative, informal mean to legitimate organisational ends , expediency, greasing the wheels, kick-backs
Tolerated corruption  incidental corruption that is tolerated and/or condoned by officials
Corruption as organisational goal  illicit gain becomes the organisational goal in itself; kleptocracies, Marcos/Philippines, Mobuto/Zaire, Abacha/Nigeria etc.
Direct and indirect violation of HRs e.g. diverts resources (food, clean water, education, health care), despoils the environment. Rights are turned into commodities (Ruggiero, 1994).
State-corporate crime
 States, the perpetrators of the most serious and widespread crimes, do not always work alone. Very frequently, deviant state actions intersect with the criminal actions of corporations to produce massive human rights and environmental violations (Green and Ward, 2004). State-corporate actions and HRs violations! Money talks  bending rules/regulations. Safety crimes.

Environmental crime
Natural disaster as state crime? Vulnerability, poverty, insurance. Omission to act. Cost  benefit arguments. Early warning systems. Links to poor building regs.

State agency crime
Classic example here is police crime. Extensive literature but all state agencies can commit similar abuses. (Cop) cultural explanations (solidarity, suspicion, cult of masculinity, risk taking& racism, sexism), rule bending/expediency, black letter/blue letter, contempt of cop, authority/ face .

State terrorism
 Classic terrorism, state terror, and assassination, extra-judicial killings etc. State terror as rational action  counter-terrorism.  Coercive governance . Authoritarian and democratic states alike. Clandestine terrorism e.g. disappearances, death squads,

Torture and crimes against the person
The only non-derogable right under the UDHR, namely Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
 any act by which severe pain and suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions
Article 1 UN Convention against Torture (1984)

War crimes
Warfare has always been characterised by some legal or conventional boundaries that distinguish soldiering from crime. The conventions of war prescribe forms of conduct that are promoted as honourable, noble and manly. Contemning other behaviours ( dum dum bullets, chemical weapons, bombing cities) as less so. Reduce the risks/costs of war. Crimes of aggression,  crimes of obedience ,
 Criminal wars  where the nature of war is such that for one or both sides there is little or no incentive to abide by the conventional rules. Looting illegal trading, transnational crime networks and corruption. Oil grab? Colonial conflicts.
 Criminal armies  where commanders decide to flout the rules of engagement as a matter of strategic advantage. Rogue military units  militias.
 Criminal soldiers  where individual combatants have motives for breaking the rules (food, money, sex& )
Rape in war, child soldiers, ethnic cleaning.
Collective crime. Abhorrent ideologies or ideologies of evil. Nazism. Sub-human, dehumanising and the rise of the 9 bermensch! Institutional racism in Metropolitan police  institutionalized forms of discrimination leading to policies of harm/disadvantage e.g. 6 year old in prison in UK! Thai government just admitted to towing Burmese back out to sea.

Political economy and crime

Fear, insecurity and consumption; job crisis masculinity; market economy; discourse of choice; winners and losers  drugs, alcohol and gambling; topography of social space  ghettos; privatisation, fraud, benefits; lethal markets  arms and pharmaceuticals; political economy and social control; penal industrial complex;

Countries: Indonesia ( 1964), Chile (1973), Argentina ( 1976), Poland ( 1981), South Africa ( 1990), Falklands ( 1982), Russia (1991), Mexico ( 1994), South East Asia ( 1997), Iraq (2004) etc...

shock and awe, shock terraphy; weapons trade, private solders, reconstruction, homeland security... etc.......
harward referencing system