In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1995).That law-making overall became increasingly dominated by the Nazis, and that the judiciary for the most part cooperated willingly or even initiated some Nazi law, has been quite thoroughly documented (Fraser 1996; Lippman 1993; Miller 1995; Muller 1991; Stolleis 1998). A criminological approach to the Holocaust, then, requires some attention to the criminalization of Jews and other perceived enemies of the Nazi state. By what criteria and process does the Holocaust come to be defined as a crime? That the Holocaust was not only a crime but also a crime on a monumental scale is certainly a widely accepted proposition, and the term “crime” is commonly applied to the Holocaust.The term “crime” is invoked in somewhat different ways, however. In moralistic and humanistic terms, the Holocaust was a crime by virtue of violating widely embraced views of morality and by causing objectively identifiable harm as a consequence of intentional policies and actions. In political terms, the Holocaust was a crime because it was so defined by opposing political entities (in the form of other nations and oppositional political forces within Germany). In legalistic terms, the status of the Holocaust as crime is somewhat more complicated. But the postwar indictment of leading surviving Nazis and the Nuremberg Trials determined that various policies and actions of Nazi Germany (including the Holocaust) were violations of widely recognized international law, and many Nazis were then found guilty of crimes by a formal, adjudicatory process (see Bassiouni 1979; Conot 1983; Hackett 1998;Taylor 1992;Wolfe 1998). In a criminological context, the status of international law as comparable to state law, and the validity of the international tribunals, arises. The process of criminalization in relation to the Holocaust has been considered here. How does the process of criminalization of a genocide such as the Holocaust compare with, and how does it differ from, the process of criminalization for conventional forms of crime? An Integrative Criminological Framework for Understanding the Holocaust We can explain and understand the Holocaust. We cannot explain and understand the Holocaust. Both of these statements are correct. We can explain and understand many of the contributing factors; we cannot fully and wholly explain how the Holocaust could have occurred. Theories can be invoked in trying to explain and understand the Holocaust; no rigorous theory of the Holocaust is possible. The need for an integrative criminological framework would seem to be exemplified by the case of the Holocaust specifically and by genocide more generally. Such a framework draws upon the widest possible range of disciplines ; it adopts a fairly inclusive concept of crime, transcending narrow legalistic boundaries; and it draws upon a humanistic tradition as opposed to being Dav i d O. F r i e d r i c h s 64 limited to a narrowly positivistic (or“scientific”tradition) (Barak 1998).Diane Vaughan has argued that the study of organizational crime calls for a theoretical framework linking the macro and the micro level, or the integration of structural, social psychological, and individualistic levels of explanation (Vaughan 1999). An integrative criminological approach to the Holocaust must draw upon as many disciplines as possible and must address it on historical , societal, organizational, communal, peer group, situational, and psychological levels. More specifically, the Holocaust can only be understood in the context of an understanding of European and German history; the character and composition of post–World War I society; the nature and dynamic operation of the government bureaucracies (from departments of the state to death camp administrations) and nongovernmental organizations (e.g., the IG Farben corporation); intergroup relations within German communities and within concentration camps; peer group pressures (for example, within the Einsatzgruppen killing squads); situational factors arising in the specific circumstances of the killing process, which can take on a life of its own; and psychological dimensions involving the perpetrators on all levels. Although biogenetic factors may be relevant for understanding some manifestations of crime, their contribution to explaining the Holocaust is questionable. I share with Gregg Barak the view that both the complexity of crime (especially genocidal crime) and immense methodological challenges preclude the development of a truly testable integrated theory.At best, we can hope to achieve a rough approximation of the relative weight of a broad range of factors in contributing to the genesis of the Holocaust and to specific actions within the Holocaust.At the end of our analysis we have a residual dimension, or something left over that we cannot fully explain. Conclusion One can now...

Share