ABSTRACT
The past few decades have witnessed unprecedented global economic catastrophes that exacerbated pre-existing socioeconomic inequalities. Although many scholars have attributed the resulting social harms to the failures of neoliberal capitalism-and recognize it as criminogenic-the logics upholding the economic order continue to hold sway among the public. Given that these logics are commonly reinforced through media and popular culture narratives, in this paper we explore how economic inequalities are portrayed in American comic books. We employ a thematic analysis of comic book depictions of mass economic destruction and economic inequality from the financial crisis of 2008 through the Occupy Wall Street movement to the more recent characterization of a post-capitalist existence under the throes of a global plutocracy. In doing so we recognize the potential for re-imagining alternatives to neoliberal capitalism, taking a critical criminological lens to the comic books. We then place The Black Monday Murders, a culmination of portrayals of economic inequality and related violence, in the context of more mainstream comic book depictions and discuss how this particular work exemplifies a rising theme in comics-a purported trade-off between global capitalism and human life, a discussion point that explicitly entered American public discourse during the coronavirus pandemic.
ABSTRACT
High-profile trials are often held up as emblematic of social justice causes, but this often obscures rather than clarifies justice issues for the public. Trial outcomes may be seen as proxies of much deeper, structural problems, though media coverage routinely focuses on singular, criminal justice outcomes. This study uses a press analysis of two high-profile cases to investigate how these dynamics restrict our cultural understandings of justice outside the context of formal criminal justice responses. Specifically, we use three forms of media discourse to examine public discussion following the verdicts in the Stanford rape case in 2015 and the killing of Philando Castile by Officer Jeronimo Yanez in Minnesota in 2016. We find that both cases elicited diverse narratives, including those calling for alternative justice processes and penal populist ones. We explore these narratives under the framing of system failure, examining three different articulations. We conclude by theorizing the implications each case raises for how media negotiate ideas about what constitutes justice.
ABSTRACT
Since the development of bias crime legislation over the past few decades, scholars have debated the merits of the legislation and questioned its enforcement.(1) In light of such concerns, this study presents characteristics of all cases prosecuted as bias crimes in a New Jersey county between 2001 and 2004 and applies the hate crime typology originally developed in 1993. Results show that, in this jurisdiction, the typology is an inadequate tool for classifying cases prosecuted as hate crimes. Approximately one third of the cases are unclassifiable according to the typology. Findings indicate that the typology is useful for understanding cases in which bias is the sole motivation but inadequate for application to the many cases in which bias is a peripheral motivation.
