Abstract

This article addresses the critical issue of violence against children, defined as a violation of their rights across interpersonal, community, societal, and global settings, encompassing both physical and psychological actions targeting them or their parents. Globally, WHO estimates that an unacceptably large number of children aged 2–17 years, experience physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect yearly. War stands out as a major contributor to the infringement of children’s fundamental human rights. Those in conflict zones undergo traumatic experiences, including the loss of family members, disruptions to social networks, displacement, and the denial of basic needs. The severe deprivation of essential resources and opportunities, coupled with the stress of warfare, poses a grave threat to the emotional and cognitive development of children, increasing the risk of physical and mental illnesses, disabilities, social problems, and intergenerational consequences. The article aims to draw attention to this issue and advocates for the development of appropriate academic and post-academic educational courses and training programs. This will better equip pediatricians and healthcare professionals to effectively combat violence against children in any context.

Introduction

Violence against children, is a global critical issue, which is defined worldwide as a violation of their rights across interpersonal, community, societal, and global settings, encompassing both physical and psychological actions targeting them or their parents.1,2 Globally, WHO estimates that an unacceptably large number of children aged 2–17 years, experience physical, sexual, or emotional violence or neglect yearly.1., 2. War stands out as a major contributor to the infringement of children’s fundamental human rights. Those in conflict zones undergo traumatic experiences, including the loss of family members, disruptions to social networks, displacement, and the denial of basic needs.3 The severe deprivation of essential resources and opportunities, coupled with the stress of warfare, poses a grave threat to the emotional and cognitive development of children, increasing the risk of physical and mental illnesses, disabilities, social problems, and intergenerational consequences.2., 3., 4. The article aims to draw attention to this issue and advocates for the development of appropriate academic and post-academic educational courses and training programs. This will better equip pediatricians and healthcare professionals to effectively combat violence against children in any context.

Conclusion

In the current historic moment, it is crucial for pediatricians and families to provide support to children, mitigating the potential psychological repercussions mentioned earlier. Pediatricians can significantly contribute to ensuring that the children of the future enjoy better opportunities for a normal and enriched childhood. Their role is pivotal, especially in fostering psychological well-being and contributing to the personal growth of children within a community with its own set of rules. Children must cultivate love and respect for others, understanding that “other” does not signify a limitation but rather a treasure for their personal development. Consequently, the child of today can evolve into a better individual tomorrow.

Abstract

     Globally life imprisonment has been considered as the terminal and conclusive penalty, in most of the countries for the extreme violations and serious crimes. Thus since the last few decades this long-term conviction has been increasing throughout the world, it has attracted much of the attention towards a principal debate from human rights point of view that whether as an ultimate penalty is life imprisonment acceptable or is merely an act of violation towards human rights. In this article, the aim is to evaluate the life imprisonment complexity against the human rights standards and how it has been considered as a substitute for death penalty. Apart from this it also talks about Article 3 (universal Declaration of Human Rights) and if life imprisonment without possibility of parole violates convention or not. Further analyzing human rights perspective, the article revisits the debate to conclude if life imprisonment is justifiableretribution by severely examining it under Internationalcriminal law.

Introduction

     Life imprisonment as the only deterrent for violent offences has been a long-standing tradition which dates back to 1970s and 1980s when harsh and long-term penalties were seen as an appropriate retributive solution to rising crime rates in the US [1]. Eventually within a few years this toughon-crime movement spread across the Anglo-Saxon world, finally finding hold in Europe. In criminological research and national crime figures, there is little agreement about what constitutes a long-term jail sentence [2]; meanings vary from five years to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the latter clearly indicating circumstances where inmates are held in prison until they die. While offences and punishments were originally regarded as inherently state prerogatives, implying that it was up to states to decide what were the worst crimes and how to prosecute their criminals, constituting the essence of their “right to punish”; International human rights law (IHRL) saw that as an unacceptable statement that needed to be revised, and it stood up to determine that states are not able to prosecute criminals in whatever manner they see fit, and that there would be certain restrictions. The current contribution builds on this foundation by addressing the punishment of life imprisonment, with a particular emphasis on forms of life imprisonment in which the possibility of parole is missing or, if available, is not materially open to inmates, again describing this as a sentence without the hope of any escape, even fairly – let alone completely [3].

Conclusion

     Providing life a prisoner with a possibility of parole is not only fair, but also compatible with their intrinsic humanity, which is unaffected even by the most egregious offences. The suggested theoretical framework to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under International human rights legislation provides for the recognition of certain similar characteristics and discrepancies within the major International instruments aimed at the defence of human rights. The aforementioned arguments for life sentences under International humanitarian law seem to be critical for International criminal tribunals and courts to take a more oriented and careful human rights policy. This is because, aside from the tradition of infuriating and mitigating circumstances, these courts and tribunals have rendered no heed to the human rights-based arguments for life imprisonment. Recent judicial precedent suggests that the present state of affairs jeopardizes human-rights negotiations, and that the lack of annual evaluations results in unnecessarily lengthy sentences. Also, there has been a lengthy discussion on whether life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the most serious kind of punishment that can be enforced on anyone under the age of 18. The sole solution to this debate is that the punishment should be equal to the severity of the offence and the risk that the criminal poses. Aside from that it has been concluded that life imprisonment can breach Article 3 if it possesses certain attributes or ignores certain vital legal authority conducts. However, since the European Court of Human Rights has not established any official uniform standards, the specifications for specified follow can be difficult. It is clear that a concrete and formal life sentence with no chance of parole is deemed a violation of Article 3. As a result, the only criterion for incarceration is that it does not violate Article 3 which prohibits cruel or degrading treatment. Overall, it is past time for us to reconsider our attitudes about long-term incarceration. This is critical, since long-term prisoners make up a vast and increasing percentage of prisons around the world, and protecting their basic human rights with a correctional facility that offers them a chance to be released is paramount.

The Roots: Individual Mastery versus Anti-hegemonic Sovereignty

The Core: Civil and Political Rights or Socioeconomic Well-Being

The Fruits: Identity Politics or the Flowering of Civil, Political, Cultural, and Environmental Rights

Conclusion: Concrete Universals

Notes

Disclosure Statement

Notes on Contributor

References

Abstract

     Based on the principle that universals are valid if they are concrete universals, this article provides a comparison between Western liberal and Chinese Marxist approaches to human rights. It does so in three steps. First is the analysis of the foundations, or roots, of the Western liberal emphasis on an individual’s mastery over a “right” understood in terms of private property, and the Marxist tradition’s emphasis on anti-hegemonic sovereignty in light of anti-colonial struggles for national liberation. Second is the contrast between the development of the Western approach to the core human rights in terms of freedom of expression, movement, and assembly, and the Marxist emphasis on the right to socioeconomic well-being, or common prosperity. Third is the comparison between the fruits of either tradition, one in terms of identity politics, and the other in the emphasis on civil, political, cultural, and environmental rights. The article concludes by asking whether the two approaches are able to come to an understanding of each other, and proposes that such an understanding may need to take place in light of the concept and reality of concrete universals.

The Western Emphasis on Individual Mastery over Private Property

     To begin with the roots: the Western tradition begins in Western Europe of the eleventh century. During this period, the fabled “lawyer popes” began the process of a thorough transformation of the European legal and political framework. These lawyer popes and their advisers made a crucial rediscovery: the ancient Roman concept of absolute private property. In Rome of the second century BCE, they were faced with a legal conundrum that concerned slaves. Was a slave a human being or a “thing” (res)? If the former, then the relation between a master and a slave would be one between human beings; if the latter, then the relation would be one between a human owner and an object or a “thing.” Given that slaves had gradually been reduced to the same level as cattle and material objects, it was the relation between a master and a “thing” that constituted the legal problem to be solved.

     Roman jurists—legal theorists—came up with an ingenious solution that would come to have repercussions they could never have imagined. This was the category of absolute private property,1 in which the primary relation of the owner of private property was to the “thing” that he—and it was invariably a “he”—owned.2 This may seem like a somewhat strange way to formulate the solution, since those who are immersed in the Western tradition tend to think of private property in terms of the relations with other owners: I own this object, which means that you do not own it. Not so for the Romans. Instead, absolute private property was constituted as the relation between the owner and the object owned. Why? Because the object owned was a slave. The various ways in which this relation was expressed are telling: the slave was seen as simply an extension of the master, an automaton that acted as though it were a part of the master, as the hand of the master.3

Conclusion: Concrete Universals

     In conclusion, two points need to be made. To begin with, I have emphasised two approaches and indeed traditions concerning human rights. One begins from individual mastery over private property, grows into civil and political rights, and flowers in terms of identity politics. The other begins from anti-hegemonic sovereignty, upon which grows socioeconomic well-being, and flourishes in term of civil, political, cultural, and economic rights in a socialist system. But a question remains as to whether they have any common ground. By way of an answer, let us consider two documents from the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNGA 1966a) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (UNGA 1966b). In many ways, these two documents embody the two traditions I have analysed in this study, INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT 247 although it is notable that the Marxist tradition’s emphases are also to be found in most developing—and formerly colonised—countries, who also are signatories to the right to development (UNGA 1986). The history of the writing of these documents is instructive: the two main declarations were initially planned to be one document. However, due to disagreement in emphasis between countries that espouse the Western liberal tradition and the majority of countries that were formerly colonised by such countries and strongly advocate anti-hegemonic sovereignty, the declaration was divided into the two we have now. They were initially published in 1966, and they both came into effect in 1976. If one considers the countries that have signed and ratified the declarations (not difficult to determine), it is clear that a divide still exists and mutual recognition of distinct traditions and emphases on human rights still requires considerable work (Sun 2014; Li et al. 2015, 68–69; Zwart 2020).

Abstract

     Since the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) were adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, they have diffused into policy frameworks, laws, and regulations across the globe. This special issue seeks to advance the interdisciplinary field of human rights research by examining key elements of the emerging transnational regime for the regulation of business and human rights. In seven original contributions, scholars from political science, law, accounting, and philosophy critically reflect on the theoretical foundations of the UNGPs, they analyze the effectiveness of implementation mechanisms and current regulatory practice, and they advance proposals for the future development of the business and human rights regime. In this introduction, we prepare the ground for these analyses, proceeding in three steps. Firstly, we argue that the adoption of the UNGPs has triggered a norm cascade which requires a distinctive, empirically oriented research agenda focusing on the scope, governance, and effectiveness of corporate human rights accountability norms and instruments. Secondly, we explain how the articles in this special issue contribute to that research agenda by addressing these themes. Thirdly, we provide an overview of the individual contributions and point out avenues for future research.

Introduction

     Following the endorsement of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2011, they have become widely regarded as “the most authoritative statement of the human rights duties or responsibilities of states and corporations adopted at the UN level” (De Schutter 2013: xvii).Footnote1 Developed in a worldwide consultation process by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), John Ruggie, the UNGPs were aimed at tackling and preventing business-related human rights abuses by closing governance gaps in the largely unrestrained global market economy (Ruggie 2013: xxiii).

     Although many corporations contribute positively to realizing human rights, e.g., through job creation, the production and distribution of goods, services, and infrastructure, business activities also impact negatively on human rights. Some of the most severe and widespread forms of corporate human rights abuse include the dislocation of indigenous communities without compensation or consultation, the impairment of people’s health and safety due to unfit working conditions and destruction of the environment, the leaking of individuals’ data to government agents, the denial of freedom of expression and of association, discrimination and sexual harassment at the workplace, and sweatshops, bonded labor, and child labor in the transnational supply chains of global brands (see Bernaz 2017: 1–2; Ruggie 2013: xv-xvi; ILO 2017). However, it is rather difficult to hold business enterprises to account for human rights abuses, for various reasons.

Conclusion and Avenues for Future Research

     Taken together, the contributions to this special issue offer a rich multi-dimensional and transdisciplinary analysis of key elements of the business and human rights regime. On the one hand, they enhance our understanding of different conceptions of corporate human rights accountability, of the role and functions, the impact but also the limitations of important actors and governance instruments of that regime. On the other hand, the articles engage with these limitations in a critical yet constructive fashion, making proposals for resolving misalignments in the governance architecture and improving the effectiveness of specific instruments. In so doing, all contributions are driven by a normative commitment to strengthen corporate human rights accountability, help prevent business-related human rights abuses, and improve access to effective remedies for victims.

     Building on the insights provided by the analyses in this special issue, as well as on the research agenda set out above, we identify three main tasks for future research in the business and human rights field. Firstly, scholarship needs to further investigate the scope and substance of changes in corporate human rights conduct in response to regulatory initiatives. This is not only to differentiate good corporate practice from rhetorical adaptation or strategic attempts to co-opt the human rights discourse but also to identify the underlying conditions for the effective socialization of business actors into norm acceptance and compliant behavior. Secondly, researchers need to keep pace with the evolution of, and changing trends in, the business and human rights regime. This implies the close monitoring and critical assessment of the construction, contestation, and transformation of human rights and accountability norms, as well as of the emergence and performance of actors and governance instruments, such as National Contact Points, National Action Plans, corporate reporting standards, and due diligence laws. Here, it is important to move beyond dominant perspectives on the Global North and extend the research focus to regulatory frameworks and corporate conduct at the starting point of transnational supply chains, especially in countries of the Global South. Finally, business and human rights scholars should continue to feed their academic expertise into the policy process and public debate at the local, national, and transnational levels. With their privileged access to the insights of multidisciplinary human rights scholarship, business and human rights scholars are in an ideal position to create awareness for the complexity of the issues at stake, help building bridges between opposing actors, and contribute to the enhancement of corporate human rights accountability.

Abstract

     Although the extractive industry has contributed to the socio-economic development of many African countries, it has also led to incidences of human rights violations in many rural communities. However, the use of an evidence-based approach to search, locate, explore and synthesize the literature systematically in order to understand the nature and pattern of human rights violations within the extractive industry remains limited. Consequently, this study employs the systematic review method to determine the nature and drivers of human rights abuses within the extractive industry in Africa. Of the 791 articles retrieved from the search of the databases, 58 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in evidence synthesis. Based on the thematic analysis conducted on the articles that met the inclusion criteria, we find that human rights abuses tend to be associated with the violation of economic, social, and cultural rights, tensions over land ownership, the loss of livelihood, and community marginalization. We conclude the study with some policy implications and suggest avenues for future research.

Introduction

     The relationship between resource extraction and sustainable development in Africa has largely remained contested. Indeed, while the World Bank and African governments/elites are often quick to point out that resource extraction contributes to the economic development of African countries, others have emphasized the negative socio-economic impacts of the extractive industry on the poor and marginalized communities (Akabzaa and Darimani, 2001; 1demudia, 2007; Tuokuu et al., 2018). As primarily an exporter of primary commodities, African governments pursuit of economic development through resource extraction with the adoption of neoliberal economic policies like the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in the 1980s resulted in the liberalization of codes and laws that also allowed for the influx of foreign multinational corporations (MNCs) into rural communities where resource extraction tends to take place (Campbell, 2003, 2010; Tuokuu et al., 2019). As a result, in contrast to the 1960s that was dominated by African governments’ pursuit of nationalization of economic policies, the domain of opposition to MNC activities in the 1990s invariably shifted from host governments to local communities (Harvey, 2006). These contestations over the activities of MNCs in rural communities often resulted in a widespread incidence of corporate-community conflict and associated human rights violations. For example, local protests over incidences of environmental degradation associated with the operation of Shell in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria led to the displacement of the Ogoni people and the violations of their human rights (Obi, 2009). These kinds of incidences resulted in reputational damage, increased social risks, and associated costs for MNCs.

Conclusion and future directions

     The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize available evidence in the literature on the drivers and patterns of human rights abuses in the extractive industry as well as identify the common suggestions on how to address these abuses. Our analysis showed that the pattern of abuse is often in terms of the violation of economic, social, and cultural rights and the core drivers of human rights abuses are contestations over land ownership, the associated loss of livelihood, and the marginalization of communities in decision-making. Much of the suggestions on efforts to address human rights abuses in the sector focused on CSR programs, formalization of ASM, and active community engagement. The implication is that the literature on business and human rights within the extractive industry in Africa tend to focus on document incidence of human rights abuses as opposed to analyzing how MNCs seek to address their human rights obligations. Indeed, while the extant works are critical for better understanding of the nature of the human rights problems in the sector, there is a need to move towards examining the effectiveness of the different processes and practices that MNCs are putting in place to address their human rights obligations. This is particularly important given that several MNCs are increasingly signing up to global initiatives such as the UN global compact and the voluntary principles of security and human rights as means to demonstrate their commitments to become corporate human rights defenders. Put differently, future research can usefully examine the extent to which corporate commitment to such global initiatives have necessarily yielded positive human rights dividend for local communities on the ground. There is the need for future research to probe how corporate commitments to global initiatives have yielded human rights outcomes within the extractive industry in Africa. Similarly, a crucial assumption underpins the idea that it is in the best interest of MNCs to respect human rights and rely on the notion that they require social licenses to operate. While the concept of social licenses to operate has been a subject of various critiques (see Owen and Kemp, 2013), we still do not know whether and how poor communities can enforce social license to operate or what other effective alternative corporate accountability strategies that local communities might be deploying to ensure MNCs respect their human rights.

Abstract

     The digitalisation of production driven by new paradigms such as Industry 4.0, factories of the future and smart manufacturing, create new challenges as to how manufacturers and other supply chain actors would discharge their corporate responsibility to respect human rights. These new paradigms enable novel approaches like distributed and collaborative manufacturing. Manufacturers increasingly leverage digital technologies, such as 3D printing, cloud manufacturing and artificial intelligence, to provide customised products. Digital technologies also improve predictive and preventive maintenance on the shop floor and across the supply chain, increasing the overall resilience of manufacturing industries in times of crisis. This article proposes a blueprint of a collaborative, decentralised approach to human rights due diligence in digital supply chains. It argues that the pooling of human rights due diligence efforts in manufacturing industries could have network-wide effects of incentivising value chain actors to also collaborate on providing collective remedy.

Introduction

     The manufacturing of a modern aircraft, like an Airbus A321, is the result of highly efficient cooperation across complex, tightly integrated global supply and manufacturing chains. The process starts with the design and engineering, through production and transport of aircraft sections, to final assembly and tests, certification and delivery to the customer. Growing demand in air travel in the past few decades has naturally increased the production needs. At the same time, fast-paced developments in the information and communications technology (ICT) industry have offered new ways of optimising manufacturing. As a result, the supply chain of modern aircraft production no longer consists of just raw materials, such as steel, aluminium, titanium and their alloys. The deployment of smart sensors on the shop floor and the utilization of automated systems means that supply chains now include also digital assets, such as datasets, computer simulations, digital twins and pre-trained machine learning models.

     New models of manufacturing are enabled by concepts like distributed, collaborative and additive manufacturing. At the same time, they also create distinct challenges as to how manufacturers and the various actors in their supply chains could discharge their corporate responsibility to respect human rights. It has become widely accepted that businesses do have a corporate responsibility to respect human rights. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (‘Guiding Principles’) promote this responsibility as a global standard of expected conduct from business enterprises, regardless of their size, sector, operational context, ownership or structure.1 Thus, from manufacturers to service-providing enterprises, all actors in the value chain are subject to the same responsibility.2 In this sense, the corporate responsibility to respect human rights applies equally to enterprises engaged in traditional manufacturing as well as those in smart manufacturing driven by the developments in so-called Industry 4.0.

Conclusion

     Collaborative smart manufacturing in Industry 4.0 represents a significant shift in the convention manufacturing paradigm. The vertical and horizontal integration of actors in the supply chain leads to the emergence of new business relationships entailing new potential adverse human rights impacts. It is beyond doubt that business entities have a corporate responsibility to respect human rights. A main tool to discharge this responsibility, human rights due diligence is premised on the idea that it is within the business enterprise’s control to prevent or mitigate human rights impacts at the beginning of a new business relationship or activity. This assumption, however, is challenged by technological and organisational processes within Industry 4.0 which are based on complex real-time network interactions and data-driven autonomous decision-making. In this new collaborative environment, the manufacturer becomes one of many actors in a network, along with the customer. This gives rise to new potential aggregate adverse human rights impacts at the level of the ecosystem which cannot be sufficiently addressed by any single actor alone.

Abstract

Advancing awareness of the workforce and job issues faced by women in the KSA will encourage HRM departments to enhance Saudi women’s work experience by implementing more gender-friendly work environments, practices, and processes. Therefore, the researcher decided to implement this research to shed light on the role of Saudi women working in community development, to identify the most important challenges and issues facing Saudi women working in new unconventional jobs, and to discuss methods that can be followed to reduce these challenges and issues. To achieve this, the researcher used a descriptive-analytical approach and qualitative research methods (interviews). The interviews were conducted with 10 Saudi women working in new, non-traditional jobs. The study reached a number of results, most notably that Saudi society still rejects the work of Saudi women and their participation in the labor market. The results also confirmed that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia seeks to provide suitable job opportunities for Saudi women and to integrate them into the labor market. In addition, the results confirmed that the family plays an important role in supporting working Saudi women and helping them achieve career and professional excellence. In light of this, the researcher recommended the necessity of changing Saudi society’s view of working Saudi women. The need to make many transformative changes in employment methods and to achieve equal employment opportunities between women and men.

Highlights

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Search protocol

Criminal justice system data and social network analysis

Taking an archaeological approach to working with criminal justice records

Charting a way forward for social network researchers

Appendix A. Investigative records

Appendix B. Law enforcement intelligence reports and threat assessments

Appendix C. Offender databases

Appendix D. Prosecution files

Appendix E. Court files

Appendix F. Departmental inquiries or commissions

Appendix G. Multiple criminal justice sources

References

Abstract

The use of social network analysis to study groups of offenders engaged in illicit activities such as drug trafficking and terrorism has grown in popularity over the last three decades. Along with such growth, however, researchers have been confronted with a suite of challenges related to the use of data extracted from criminal justice records. In this paper, we review these challenges through a discussion of the extant empirical literature utilizing social network analysis approaches that draw data from the criminal justice system. First, we outline and discuss the different types of data used across this literature. Second, we chronicle the challenges that have emerged across the field of criminal networks via a comprehensive review of the literature. In particular, we draw on the documented experiences of researchers in the field, including our own, and detail “archeological” approaches that future researchers can utilize to adapt and overcome said challenges. The use of criminal justice records can suffer from a number of limitations, mainly with respect to accuracy, validity and reliability. Such data may include errors, both intentional (e.g. aliases, false information) and unintentional (e.g. transcription errors), including missing data. The use of criminal justice records present particular problems with defining the network boundary as the boundary as determined by law enforcement or prosecution agencies may not correspond to the boundary as defined by network members. We conclude by offering a number of recommendations for researchers about data collection and preparation when utilizing criminal justice records.

Introduction

In his seminal text, Outsiders, Howard Becker (1963) noted that “the most persistent difficulty in the scientific study of deviant behavior is the lack of solid data” (p.165). This sentiment applies to all types of research on crime, criminals and criminal behavior. Crime is usually hidden and often undetected, and criminals tend to maintain social barriers between themselves and out-group members including researchers. Not to be deterred, innovative researchers have sought out novel sources of data and analytical approaches to provide more robust understandings of crime. In recent years, social network approaches that involve the collection of criminal justice records on actors and the links between them, have provided powerful new ways to study crime and understand criminal networks. Criminal justice records can yield unique insights into offence and offender characteristics that can permit the mapping of the diverse connections that exist between criminal actors. Social network analysis (SNA) can then be used to enhance understandings of how emergent social structures shape various criminal activities, and how crime can be controlled (Brewer, 2017; Morselli, 2009b). The use of social network analysis to study groups of offenders engaged in illicit activities such as drug trafficking and terrorism has grown in popularity over the last three decades. Indeed, in a recent article, Faust and Tita (2019) predict that the field has been evolving such that “network methods [will] become part of the standard toolkit in criminological research” (p. 117). Along with such growth, however, researchers have been confronted with a suite of challenges related to the extraction and use of data collected from criminal justice records.

Highlights

Abstract

Keywords

JEL

1. Introduction

2. COVID-19 and crime

3. Empirical strategy

4. Results

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Declaration of Competing Interest

Appendix A. Appendix

References

Abstract

Objective
To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on conventional crime and organized crime in Mexico City, Mexico.

Methods
Mexico City’s Attorney General’s Office reported crime data, covering domestic violence, burglary, robbery, vehicle theft, assault-battery, homicides, kidnapping, and extortion. We use an event study for the intertemporal variation across the 16 districts (municipalities) in Mexico City for 2019 and 2020.

Results
We find a sharp decrease on crimes related to domestic violence, burglary, and vehicle theft; a decrease during some weeks on crimes related to assault-battery and extortion, and no effects on crimes related to robbery, kidnapping, and homicides.

Conclusions
While our results show a decline in conventional crime during the COVID- 19 pandemic, organized crime remains steady. These findings have policy implications for catastrophic events around the world, as well as possible national security issues in Mexico.

1. Introduction

After the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, governments around the world imposed a series of lockdowns. Non-essential businesses closed for several weeks, travel became difficult, social gatherings were limited, and officials from national and regional governments advised people to stay at home. All of these restrictions sought to accomplish social distancing, a vital public health tool used to contain the rapid growth of emerging infectious diseases (Fong et al., 2020). In essence, these stay-at-home orders modified most social structures, including criminal activity.

Until recently, research on the net effect of a large-scale lockdown on criminal activity was non-existent. New efforts within the criminal justice discipline are filling the knowledge gap. We aim to expand this literature by studying the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on crime in Mexico City, using records from Mexico City’s Attorney General’s Office. The particular context of Mexico offers a glimpse into the effects of a lockdown on crime in a developing economy that shares many characteristics with other countries in Latin America. In particular, Mexico has a significant presence of organized criminal enterprises —besides conventional criminals—and institutional weaknesses in the criminal justice system.

The stay-at-home order time-line in Mexico City was similar to the rest of the world. In December 2020, an epidemic of a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in Wuhan, China. The virus spread quickly throughout Asia (e.g. Iran) and then Europe (e.g., Italy and Spain) during the first three months of 2020, and made its way to North America in February 2020. On March 11, 2020, COVID-19 became a pandemic, as pronounced by the World Health Organization (WHO). The following week, restaurants, gyms, clubs, and universities began to shut down voluntarily in Mexico City. On March 23, 2020, the federal government officially started the “social distancing” campaign, and the whole country went under lockdown. Schools, government offices, malls, parks, and non-essential businesses closed temporarily down in Mexico City.

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

2.1. City of Buenos Aires Police (CBAP) organization

3. Data and methods

4. Results

4.1. Spatial descriptive statistics

4.2. Distance decay analysis and the buffer zone hypothesis

5. Discussion

6. Conclusion

Appendix.

References

Abstract

This paper discusses the empirical strategy used to test which approximation to journey-to-crime theory is more appropriate for modelling the crime deterrent effect of police stations. Using crime spatial analysis, this paper tests whether monotonic criminal distance decay from police stations or a buffer zone in the vicinity of police stations is the most appropriate way to model criminal behavior. The aim of the paper is to detect fixed patterns of spatial distribution of crime in relation to the location of police stations, independent of other variables. A new high-frequency daily dataset of the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 with reported property crimes (robbery, theft, car robbery and theft) and personal crime (homicide) in the City of Buenos Aires, is used to model the paper’s findings. The authors found empirical evidence of a non-random spatial concentration for all crimes. It was also found that the commission of crimes increases exponentially as the distance from the nearest police station increases, until reaching an interval of 500–600 m, at which point, it begins to descend once again. Evidence seems to show that police stations have a deterrent effect on crime.

1. Introduction

Modelling criminal location choice is fundamental for researchers and practitioners. Understandably, then, one of the most developed areas of research in recent years (other than offender/victims-based characteristics) to explain the spatial distribution of crime, is precisely, the geography of offenders. The majority of studies attempt to model journey-to-crime based on the hypothesis that either a) there is monotonic criminal distance decay from offenders’ homes, similar to that of the majority of human mobility (for example, the study by Gimpel et al., 2008; on voting patterns), or b) there is a buffer zone near offenders’ homes with significantly reduced criminality (O’Leary, 2011). Both hypotheses have implications for theories explaining criminal behavior (Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999). However, studies attempting to prove the existence of a buffer zone, have had mixed empirical findings. For example, the recent literature review by Bernasco and van Dijke (2020) identifies 108 studies on the relationship between the frequency of crime and offenders’ homes, of which, only 33 provide solid evidence for the existence of a buffer zone, while the remaining 75 have contrary evidence.