Corona crimes: How pandemic narratives change criminal landscapes
| Published date | 01 May 2022 |
| Date | 01 May 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1362480620981637 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480620981637
Theoretical Criminology
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1362480620981637
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
Corona crimes: How pandemic
narratives change criminal
landscapes
Sveinung Sandberg
University of Oslo (UiO), Norway
Gustavo Fondevila
Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), Mexico
Abstract
The epidemic psychology of pandemics creates an atmosphere of panic and fear that
can expedite new laws and facilitate criminogenic narrative arousal. Using narrative
criminology, we discuss crimes that emerged from pandemic narratives in the early
phases of the disease in Mexico. We show how pandemic master narratives have
unexpected criminogenic effects; can be negotiated to make them criminogenic; and are
opposed by more fundamentally criminogenic counter-narratives. We also show how
pandemics repurpose justifications for traditional crimes and offer an opportunity for
narrative repositioning of “criminals”. Societal crises intensify the continuous narrative
negotiation that always underlies the meaning of crime. Pandemics can therefore act
as a prism through which social scientists can see how crime is an ongoing narrative
accomplishment.
Keywords
COVID-19, epidemic psychology, Latin America, Mexico, narrative criminology,
pandemic
Corresponding author:
Sveinung Sandberg, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo, PO box 6706, St
Olavs plass 5, Oslo, 0130, Norway.
Email: sveinung.sandberg@jus.uio.no
981637TCR0010.1177/1362480620981637Theoretical CriminologySandberg and Fondevila
research-article2020
Article
2022, Vol. 26(2) 224–244
Introduction
The fundamental criminological question “what is crime?” becomes even more urgent in
pandemics. While crime is always the outcome of a particular societal and historical
context, and is constantly under negotiation, this is particularly evident during crises and
great societal change. Such times also give rise to new types of crime, reignite old ones
and repurpose justifications for crime. The meaning and general understandings of laws
and crimes that emerge during pandemics are less fixed than they are for longer-standing
ones, and leave more room for narrative inventiveness, negotiation and resistance.
Christie (2004) famously stated that there is no such thing as “crime”. With this seem-
ingly provocative statement, he perhaps only pointed out the obvious: namely, that what
is defined as crime is always in flux, and reliant upon state definitions and popular per-
ceptions. Understandings of crime are in constant negotiation with involved institutional
stakeholders, mass media, politics and public opinion.
Christie’s statement recalls developments within critical social studies, the turn to
language, and constructivism in one simple sentence. In criminology, such views have
been expressed by critical criminology (Michalowski, 1996), constitutive criminology
(Henry and Milovanovic, 1996), cultural criminology (Ferrell et al., 2008) and narrative
criminology (Presser and Sandberg, 2015). In different ways, these perspectives study
how crime and harm emerge from, and are embedded in language, and have pointed out
that what is considered “criminal” at any particular moment in history is always defined
by those in power. Moreover, what is punishable and how it is punished frequently
changes, and certain behaviors are sometimes described as “criminal” even when they
may not be against the law, while other acts may be acceptable in public opinion even
though they are against the law. Crime should thus be seen as an ongoing accomplish-
ment, and a process where state institutions and public opinion come to a temporary
agreement on what should be understood as criminal and how it should be sanctioned.
Catastrophes, crises and other great societal changes increase and intensify these pro-
cesses (Strong, 1990), working as catalysts for changes in both criminal behavior and
narrative interpretation. During a state of perceived emergency, there is more at stake,
and thus sometimes a greater narrative openness (Punday, 2012) or narrative ambiguity
(Polletta, 2006) in terms of how behavior should be interpreted. There is also a greater
acceptance of radical changes.
The COVID-19 pandemic changed established patterns in traditional crime (e.g. Ashby,
2020; Boserup et al., 2020; Shayegh and Malpede, 2020). During the early phases of the
coronavirus pandemic, new forms of criminal behavior also emerged and older ones
were reignited. In Latin America, some communities began to illegally block roads in
order to prevent the spread of the disease, there were attacks on healthcare workers out
of fear of infection and looting and other crimes occurred, justified by the unfolding
crisis. The coronavirus pandemic resulted in the introduction of new laws limiting social
interaction and mobility, and thus also, in new possible crimes such as breaking curfews,
not wearing masks in public or breaking other government or state regulations. In some
countries in the region, criminal organizations also started distributing food to help vul-
nerable communities, sanitizing public transport and preventing people from leaving
their homes by enforcing the quarantine. Where the State took no responsibility for these
225
Sandberg and Fondevila
To continue reading
Request your trial