Immunity to Environmental Crime, Harm and Violence: An Ongoing Pandemic and a Possible Narrative Vaccine

• Author: Avi Brisman
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20970885
• Date: 01 March 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20970885

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2022, Vol. 66(4) 451 –469

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20970885

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Immunity to Environmental

Crime, Harm and Violence:

An Ongoing Pandemic and a

Possible Narrative Vaccine

Avi Brisman1,2,3

Abstract

As of June 2020, there have been at least 2,540 mass shootings since the Sandy

Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, CT, on December 14, 2012. Some

have suggested that the repeated trauma of these massacres has created a collective

“emotional numbness,” lessening our empathy. This article asks whether a similar

phenomenon is occurring with respect to environmental crime and harm. It considers

whether we have developed “compassion fatigue” regarding environmental violence

and contemplates a “workout regimen” for empathy for Gaia’s suffering. In so doing,

it seeks to engage with emerging work in the penumbra of narrative criminology and

green cultural criminology.

Keywords

climate change, compassion fatigue, empathy, environmental crime, environmental

harm, green cultural criminology, green criminology, narratives/stories, pandemic,

vaccine

Introduction

This article begins with a number of propositions or statements, which I put forth in

order to set up a comparison between so-called “violent crimes” (and homicides, in

particular) and “environmental crimes.”

1Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, USA

2Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

3University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Avi Brisman, School of Justice Studies College of Justice and Safety Eastern Kentucky University, 521

Lancaster Avenue, 467 Stratton Richmond, KY 40475 USA.

Email: avi.brisman@eku.edu

970885IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20970885International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBrisman

research-article2020

452 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 66(4)

First, “many people never will be directly affected by crime” and most people are

never the (direct) victim of a mass shooting (Schildkraut et al., 2018, pp. 224, 223).1

In contrast, many more people are direct victims of environmental harms (see Lynch,

2013). To be sure, all of us are, in some way, victims, as well as offenders, in the crime

of climate change. Indeed, “the impacts of climate change have and will (or, at least,

pose the potential to) ‘penetrate all aspects of environment, society and economy’

(Schipper & Pelling, 2006, pp. 27–28)” (Brisman, 2015, p. 182).

Second, “individual beliefs and perceptions of crime typically are shaped by the

media (Chermak, 1994; Graber, 1980; Maguire et al., 1999; Mayr & Machin, 2012;

Pollak & Kubrin, 2007; Robinson, 2011; Surette, 1992; Warr, 2000). Studies have

shown that the mass media are the primary source of information about crime for

nearly 95% of the general population (Graber, 1980; Surette, 1992)” (Schildkraut

et al., 2018, p. 224). Moreover, Schildkraut et al. (2018, p. 223) stress that the way in

which mass shootings are understood is shaped almost solely by the mass media.

Unfortunately, as Ozymy et al. (2020, p. 150) point out, “it is still the case that the

general public is unaware of the presence of most green crimes unless there is wide-

spread media attention and mass victimization (Jarrell, 2009).” In fact, “people who

experience personally the consequences of environmental problems are more likely to

express concern (see Running et al., 2017)” than those who do not (Brisman, 2018,

p. 471). But, as Renkl (2019) reminds us, “just because we can’t see something”—and,

we might add, just because we do not experience something personally—“doesn’t

mean it isn’t happening.”2 Indeed, in earlier work (Brisman, 2014), I considered

whether we might suffer from micropsia, myopia or some other ophthalmological ail-

ment with respect to climate change. In that piece, I referred to climate change as an

“invisible crime” on the grounds that while we may intellectually grasp the idea of

climate change and have some experience of climate change—or some experience that

we attribute to climate change—we do not see climate change or feel it the way we

might other discrete environmental “events,” and thus the lag time between emissions

and their effects on climate makes it especially difficult to mobilize political will to

address the problem.3 Likewise, Per Espen Stoknes, a Norwegian psychologist who is

serving a term in the Parliament of Norway, points to the “distancing barrier” that

obstructs people’s focus on climate change and its solutions. As Stoknes explains, “[w]

hen we speak about climate, it’s far out into the future, usually in 2050 or beyond. CO2

is invisible, climate issues are happening somewhere else, and somebody else is

responsible. I’m sure if climate change were a bad-smelling, brownish haze that some

tyrant, lunatic, or crook was releasing into the world, we’d join together and shoot him

out of existence. But climate change is invisible, slow-moving, and doesn’t smell; and

if there’s an enemy, it’s us” (quoted in Suttie, 2018).

Third, research tends to indicate that news coverage is skewed toward stories about

crime (Schildkraut et al., 2018, pp. 223–224 (citing Chermak, 1995; Graber, 1980;

Maguire et al, 1999; Surette, 1992)). Violent crimes—and homicides, in particular—

often are “the most newsworthy because they have the ability to capture and keep the

audience’s attention, even though property offenses are considerably more common

(Chermak, 1995; Gruenewald et al., 2009; Meyers, 1997; Paulsen, 2003; Pritchard,