Crimes in Space:
A criminological and criminal
justice approach to criminal acts in outer space
By
Dr. Julian Hermida*
Introduction
Long
term-human living endeavours in outer space play a significant role in the new space
scenario that emerged with the end of the Cold War. The International Space
Station is the most visible and one of the most ambitious and transcendental
projects of human settlements in outer space. Due to isolation conditions
and a hostile outer space environment, it is expected that there will be a high
rate of criminal and deviant conflicts in any long-term human endeavour in
outer space, as has been corroborated in recent multi-culturally diverse space
experiences. All these conflicts will have enormous legal, criminal justice and
criminological implications.
First,
this article briefly examines the approach adopted by the International Space
Station to deal with criminal behavior as an example of criminal
justice and criminal law solutions in outer space. The issues and
criminal implications raised with respect to the International Space Station
may be extended to other outer space habitability experiences. Second, it recounts a habitability experience that
ended up in the commission of criminal acts. Then, it analyzes the most
significant criminological theories to see which one –if any- may be applicable
to criminal and deviant behaviour in outer space. The guiding hypothesis of the
article is that the unique characteristics of the space environment, together
with the exceptional social factors of all involved actors, demand new and
specific theories to explain criminal behavior in outer space. Its ultimate goal is to provide an arena for further
discussion on alternative explanations and solutions to criminal problems in
outer space.
The International Space Station,
located in low-earth orbit at an altitude of approximately 386 kilometers in
outer space, constitutes the first permanent civil settlement of human beings
in outer space[1]. With
its multi-use character, it is expected to enhance the scientific,
technological, and commercial use of outer space[2].
The International Space Station
emerged as US project to maintain leadership in space[3].
It began as a project under Ronald Reagan’s administration[4]
–called Space Station Freedom- to maintain US power and leadership
in outer space[5]. Due to
severe criticism and very high costs, it was temporarily abandoned. With the
end of the Cold War, the United States was concerned that new Russian
authorities would sell space related equipment to enemy states and terrorist
organizations[6], so the
United States re-floated the space station project. This time its main
objective was for the United States to have the Russian space program under
tight control[7]. So it
rallied its European allies and Japan and embarked them, together with Russia,
in this new –and more expensive- version of the original space station[8].
Thus, the United States government
reserved for itself a central role in the management and coordination of the
International Space Station[9].
Additionally, the United States, together with Russia, is in charge of the
production of elements which serve as the foundation for the international
Space Station[10]. The
European states and Japan have been entrusted with the production of relatively
minor –but very expensive- elements and Canada’s contribution is mainly in the
robotics field, with the construction and operation of the Canadarm[11].
As originally designed, the
International Space Station consists of several pressurized modules where a
crew of seven astronauts can live and conduct scientific experiments[12].
When fully completed, it will have six labs, two
habitation modules and two logistics modules in a total area of 110m across and
95m long[13].
It will have a frame, labs and living areas, water and power systems and places
to park space vehicles in various docking stations[14].
Recent budget cuts motivated by a change in US space policy reduced the
capability to 4 astronauts[15].
It has been characterized as a kind
of condominium, where partner states share the expenses of common services but
retain control of their own individual modules[16].
Utilization rights of these working and living modules are derived from the
contribution of each partner[17].
In general, any partner state that provides Space Station user elements retains
use of those elements, except that partners which provide infrastructure
elements needed to operate and use the Space Station, such as Canada’s Canadarm, receive in exchange a fixed share of the use of
some user elements[18].
The International Space Station is
the most inhabited object in outer space. Nearly twenty five percent of all
astronauts sent into outer space since the beginning of the space age in 1957
have visited the ISS[19].
Furthermore, it has attracted the first space tourists, including
multimillionaire Dennis Tito[20].
The ISS is also open for commercial utilization by private companies. Most of
the ISS partners are actively encouraging private companies to utilize their
modules in the ISS[21].
Also, Partner states may invite third states to conduct experiments and carry
out commercial activities in the ISS. This results in a mosaic of multiple
social interactions and relations in outer space, with the possibility of
numerous deviant and criminal events[22].
Criminal
and deviant behavior in outer space
Both the United States and Russia
have conducted a series of experiments in space and on earth aimed at testing
human responses to isolation conditions in outer space[23].
One of the most notorious examples is the experience conducted by the Russian
Institute of Biomedical Problems in 1998 and 1999[24].
In this experience, seven male astronauts of Russian and Japanese nationalities
and a female Canadian astronaut –Judith Lapierre-
spent 110 days aboard a replica of the Mir space station. Astronauts conducted
several scientific experiments for different agencies and the Institute of
Biomedical Problems analyzed the astronauts’ adaptability to a space-like
environment[25].
The experiment attracted
international attention as several crimes were committed in the station. Two
Russian astronauts committed battery, assault and attempted murder and one of
them –the Russian commander- also sexually assaulted and harassed Judith Lapierre[26].
Russian officials tried to minimize these incidents but the Canadian reaction
against the sexual assault virtually derived in a diplomatic conflict[27].
At several occasions during the
110-day experiment, Judith Lapierre reported that she
feared she would be sexually attacked[28].
However, Russian authorities did nothing to protect her, in part because they
were interested in studying human reaction, including criminal and deviant
behavior, to isolation in outer space[29].
On New Year’s Eve of 1999 after several weeks of living in isolation, the
Russian commander –visibly drunk- dragged Judith Lapierre,
who was then 32 years old, into a hallway, violently kissed her in the mouth
twice, touched her body and forced into her trying to have sex with her[30].
Previously, that same day the Russian commander –non sexually- assaulted
another Russian male astronaut which resulted in two injured astronauts[31].
A Japanese astronaut intervened to separate both of them and left the
experiment soon afterwards because tensions as well as verbal and non verbal
aggression made life impossible for him[32].
At a later day, another Russian astronaut had to hide the knives in the
station’s kitchen because the same two Russian astronauts that had fought
previously threatened to kill each other and were about to stab each other to
death[33].
These were not isolated incidents.
Although kept highly confidential, similar deviant acts occurred in other outer
space missions[34].
Because of its proportions and the attention it received in the media[35],
the 1999 incidents influenced the negotiation and drafting of the Code of
Conduct for the International Space Station and shaped the criminal justice
response envisioned for dealing with criminal incidents in the International Space
Station. These incidents show that human missions and settlements in outer
space are very likely to have a significantly high degree of occurrence[36].
The International Space Station
approach to criminal jurisdiction
Criminal jurisdiction
In view of the unique and
unprecedented nature of the ISS and in part influenced by the events and
experiences examined above, the partner states established clear rules for the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction[37],
which deviates from the general jurisdiction regime consecrated in the Corpus Juris Spatialis[38].
The general principle for jurisdiction, including criminal jurisdiction, in
outer space is that the state of registry exercises jurisdiction over the space
objects recorded in its national space registry and the persons on board these
objects, regardless of their nationality[39].
The Outer Space Treaty establishes that “a State on whose registry an object
launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over
such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a
celestial body”[40]. The
Registration Convention elaborated upon this principle and structured a dual
system of national and international registration[41].
Thus, the registration of an object in the national registry secures
jurisdiction, including criminal jurisdiction, and control over that object in
outer space and its personnel[42].
In the International Space Station
agreement, states opted for the registration of each contributed element in a
separate way and therefore each partner registers as space objects the flight
elements which it provides.[43]
In the case of a joint endeavor, such as the ISS, the Registration Convention
authorizes the state of registry to reach an agreement with the rest of the
launching states for the application of a certain area of the law of a state
other than the state of registry[44].
In the International Space Station Agreement all launching states, i.e., the
partner states, made use of this faculty and agreed on a specific mechanism for
the exercise of jurisdiction and control in the criminal law realm.[45]
Thus, instead of resorting to the
general principle of space law jurisdiction[46],
Canada, the European Partner States, Japan, Russia, and the United States have
opted for a criminal jurisdiction system where the right to exercise criminal
jurisdiction lies, in principle, in the state of nationality of the perpetrator[47].
This reflects a very traditional approach to criminal jurisdiction under
international law[48].
Thus, a partner state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over personnel who are
their own nationals irrespective of where the perpetrator is located, i.e., in
its own module or in another partner’s module.[49]
Thus, for example, if a Canadian astronaut commits a crime in a US module,
Canada and not the United States will have primary criminal jurisdiction over
the Canadian astronaut.
The IGA has also adopted –albeit in a
limited fashion- the doctrine of passive personality[50].
Thus, in case of misconduct on orbit that: (a) affects the life or safety of a
national of another Partner State or (b) occurs in or on or causes damage to
the flight element of another Partner State, the Partner State whose national
is the alleged perpetrator has the primordial –but not entirely exclusive-
right to exercise criminal jurisdiction[51].
If it decides to exercise it, then it preempts the right of the affected state.
However, the affected state may concur in the exercise of such jurisdiction[52].
The only possibility that the affected state has to exercise criminal
jurisdiction in an exclusive way is if the state of nationality of the
perpetrator fails to provide assurances that it will submit the case to its
competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution[53].
This clearly shows a profound mistrust of each state vis-à-vis its other
partner states, for all partners have orchestrated a system where each state’s
own nationals will –in principle- be tried by its own prosecutors, before its
own courts and according to its own substantive and procedural law.
Additionally, the IGA does not
specify how concurrent jurisdiction will be exercised. Under international law,
there are several instances of concurrent criminal jurisdiction between two or
more states. Since there is no customary international law on how to deal with
conflicts that may arise between states regarding concurrent jurisdiction, in
general these issues are regulated by treaty law[54].
So, for example, in the area of offenses committed by US forces stationed
abroad, a specific treaty regulates which state has priority in the exercise of
criminal jurisdiction[55].
This is not the case in the IGA, so in the event of the commission of one of
the crimes that may be subject to criminal jurisdiction there are no norms
which may specify how to resolve potential conflicts arising from the
concurrent criminal jurisdiction.
Code of conduct
The International Space
Station Agreement’s provisions on criminal jurisdiction have been complemented
by a Code of Conduct[56].
ISS crewmembers are subject to additional requirements, such as the ISS Flight
Rules, disciplinary policy, and requirements imposed by their Cooperating
Agency or those relating to the space launch vehicle transporting an ISS
crewmember[57].
The Code of Conduct for
the International Space Station crew[58]
established a clear chain of command on-orbit; a clear relationship between
ground and on-orbit management and a management hierarchy[59].
It sets forth the standards of conduct applicable to all ISS crewmembers during
preflight, on-orbit, and post-flight activities.
The general rule of
conduct is that ISS crewmembers must maintain a harmonious and cohesive
relationship among themselves and an appropriate level of mutual confidence and
respect through an interactive, participative, and relationship-oriented
approach, which duly takes into account the international and multicultural
nature of the crew and mission[60].
Furthermore, no ISS crewmember may give undue preferential treatment to any
person or entity in the performance of ISS activities and may not adversely
affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of any ISS partner[61].
The ISS Commander is the
leader of the crew and is responsible for forming the individual ISS
crewmembers into a single, integrated team[62].
During on-orbit operations the ISS Commander is responsible for the
accomplishment of the mission program for ensuring the safety of crewmembers
and the protection of the ISS equipment[63].
During all phases of on-orbit activity, the ISS commander has the authority to
use any reasonable and necessary means to fulfill his or her responsibilities.
The state partners interpreted that this includes the use of proportional
physical force or restraint to ensure the immediate safety of the crew Members[64].
The criminal law approach
to criminal behavior in the International Space Station does not provide any
solutions to prevent the occurrence of criminal behavior in outer space. Its
emphasis is on the repression of criminal behavior by referring - in most cases- the perpetrator to the state
of nationality for prosecution. It further ignores the needs of victims of
crimes in outer space and is oblivious to gender issues related to crimes in
space.
The criminology literature
has been prolifically probing the causes of why people commit crimes[65].
Criminological theories are as diverse as their proponents and practically
every criminology author's thought has been elevated to independent theory
status, partly because of criminology's lack of a common and unifying
theoretical thread[66].
However, all criminology theories have one distinctive common factor –they have
all been conceived to examine criminality on earth and not in outer space.
For the purpose of
analyzing whether one of these theories applies to the commission of crimes in
the International Space Station, we have created a typology of the most
representative theories of crime. Each type in the typology is tied to a different
group of theories that explains the occurrence of crime under similar
postulates and from a common angle, even if their proponents have hotly debated
and criticized the other theories included here in the same type.
Each type of the selected
criminological theories has greatly influenced criminological thought and has
shaped different criminal justice systems in the world.[67]
This is so because these theories have been dominant at different times without
winning the ultimate debate on the true causes of criminality and have all
attracted the attention of different criminal lawmakers and societies[68].
The types are titled: (i) individual explanations; (ii) sociological explanations;
and (iii) critical explanations. The typology can be usefully applied to the
study of whether current criminological thought can explain the causes of
criminal and deviant behavior in outer space. The typology is descriptive and
does not in itself assess the value of the theories in a context other than the
International Space Station or outer space. In other words, the different
theories and the encompassing typologies are not judged in terms of their
general suitability to provide explanations of the occurrence of crimes in any
situation or environment other than outer space. Some of these theories, such
as Lombroso’s Positivist School of Criminology, have
been condemned by the majority of criminologists for their lack of accuracy[69].
Others have been widely criticized for their discriminatory effects, such as
the Concentric theory, which links criminality to marginalized neighborhoods.
Without ignoring these facts, the analysis of all major theories within each
typology will be carried out with the exclusive purpose of assessing whether
one or more of these theories –if any- can be used to explain the occurrence of
crimes in outer space.
Individual explanations of
crime focus on the individual offender exclusively. The main theories are
classical school[70],
positivist school[71]
and psychological schools[72].
The major tenet of the classical school –based on utilitarian social philosophy
- is that criminals have control over their behavior, they choose to commit
crimes and they can be deterred by the threat of punishment[73].
Relying on Hobbes’ philosophical works, classical criminology holds that people
act in a rational manner, and that they choose those actions that provide the
greatest pleasure and the least pain[74].
Thus, criminal behavior occurs when an offender decides to risk violating the
law after considering the potential value of the criminal enterprise and the
potentiality of being apprehended, as well as the severity and swiftness of the
punishment.[75]
Classical theorists’ views on the causes of crime are premised on the notion that
human beings have free will and that their actions are guided by hedonism,
i.e., the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain[76].
Crewmembers –both
expedition and visiting- on the International Space Station, as well as in any
other space vehicle or platform in outer space, are continually monitored.
Their actions are followed permanently by NASA’s headquarters in Houston, Texas[77].
Crewmembers from other nationalities are also monitored by their own agencies
on a continuous fashion. Their actions are covered by network and cable
television and NASA TV provides live ISS mission coverage on a daily basis[78].
So, the deterrence effect of all these actions is very high. In fact, it is
higher than any criminal justice deterrent measure that has been implemented on
earth. Incarceration in correctional facilities, which is one of the extreme
measures of deterrence, does not generally imply a permanent monitor of all the
inmates’ actions[79]. Other
deterrence devices, such as the controversial closed circuit television cameras
installed in public places only provide a limited control of the persons’
actions, i.e., cameras are usually located in strategic places and they do not
generally film the totality of the space and the totality of all persons that enter
this space on a permanent and continuing basis[80].
So, deterrence in outer space is considerably high and essentially permanent.
Additionally, as discussed
above, the partner states established clear rules for the exercise of criminal
jurisdiction. The partner states devised a criminal justice system, based on
the nationality of the offender, where crimes may be tried by the state of
nationality of the perpetrator and in some cases by the affected Partner State.
So, the criminal jurisdiction regime, coupled with the deterrence devices of
permanent control and supervision of all crewmembers, clearly establishes a
swift, certain, and severe threat of punishment. So, because criminal acts do
occur in outer space, resort to the postulates of classical school of
criminology is not helpful to explain criminality in outer space.
The other individual
explanations of crime –positive and psychological schools- are also
ineffective. Positivist or biological explanations derive from Lombroso’s infamous studies of cadavers of executed
criminals[81].
Criminological positivism is a reaction against classical theorists’ notion of
the rational individual who chooses to commit a crime to experience pleasure. Lombroso’s main thesis is that serious offenders have
inherited criminal traits. Lombroso held that crime
is the result of biological differences “between criminals and normal
individuals[82]”. Based
on Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory, Lombroso
argued that criminals are not as developed as non criminals. Because of this lack
of complete evolution, these abnormal individuals engage in a life of crime[83].
Thus, for Lombroso, criminals are born as such, they
have inherited physical problems that lead them to the commission of crimes.
Furthermore, Lombroso elaborated a list of a series
of criminogenic traits which he believed reproduced
physical and functional qualities of remote ancestors of the human being and
that were present in all criminals[84].
Lomrbroso’s further research led him to believe that criminogenic traits can also be acquired through indirect
heredity, such as the case of a degenerate family with a history of insanity,
deafness, syphilis, epilepsy and alcoholism[85].
Psychological explanations of crime consider criminal acts as
psychopathologies, i.e., the individual’s unconscious leads to personality
deviation, which in turn leads that individual to commit criminal acts[86].
Strongly influenced by Freudian ideas, psychological explanations of crime
revolve around the notions that criminality may result from an overactive superego
that seeks punishment as a means to relieve guilt or a weak or defective ego
that may not control the impulses of the id, which leads to an unrestrained id
and thus to delinquency[87].
The psychological and psychoanalytical perspectives have broadened to include
other ideas that foster people to commit crimes.These
ideas, which range from Piaget-inspired notions of moral development[88],
information processing and low intelligence, all focus on the delinquent’s
defective mind as the main reason for criminality[89].
Astronauts are subject to
a very rigorous recruitment process where they are evaluated from medical and
psychological standpoints[90].
Thus, for example, applicants to NASA must meet basic physical and psychological
conditions and are thoroughly screened as part of their recruitment[91].
This very careful and competitive process only selects very highly qualified
individuals for human space programs[92].
Furthermore, medical and psychological conditions are evaluated annually and
only those that can satisfactorily pass these evaluations may maintain flight
status[93].
Similarly, in Canada astronauts are selected on the basis of their medical and
psychological aptitude. Furthermore, in Canada, the recruitment norms
specifically set that candidates must have the ability to perform in a group
setting and that they should possess strong personal and social competencies,
as well as other characteristics and personality traits in order to effectively
deal with the unique aspects of human spaceflight[94].
In all cases, candidates with a previous criminal record are automatically
disqualified from the recruitment process[95].
Therefore, since the
recruitment and training programs are so demanding and place such an enormous
emphasis on physical and mental conditions by keeping those that show “criminogenic” characteristics or proclivity to commit
crimes out of the recruiting process, criminality in space may not be explained
in terms of biological or psychological criminological theories.
Sociological explanations
tend to explain criminality in terms of the social environment of the
offenders. Sociological explanations of crime lie outside the individual. The
emphasis is on external factors which may trigger off criminogenic
social conditions. The immediate social environment is primarily responsible
for criminality in society[96]. Major social
factors causing criminality include broken families, poor parenting, low
quality educational experiences, delinquent peer relations, poverty, lack of
equal economic opportunity and inadequate socialization to the values implicit
in the dominant culture, among others. Some of the theories which follow this
approach include social disorganization, control, strain, cultural deviance,
labeling and social learning, among many others.
Social
disorganization theories, such as the Concentric zone theory developed by the Chicago
School, focus on the characteristics of the geographical areas where people
live and link criminality to the composition of urban cities. For example, Shaw
and McKay’s theory puts forward that transition zones in major cities are
inhabited by immigrants from other countries or other states or provinces[97].
Because of constant population changes, permanent poverty conditions and high
heterogeneity, institutions of social control, such as the family, commercial
establishments and schools, break down and can no longer carry out their
expected functions[98],
thus fostering the upsurge of crime. Furthermore, these areas with a high
concentration of delinquency tend to perpetuate its criminality by means of the
transmission of delinquent values through successive generations[99].
Travis Hirschi’s
social control theory has
focused on why people do not commit crimes[100].
For Hirschi everyone has the potential to become a
criminal but most people refrain from committing criminal acts as they are
controlled by their bonds to conventional society[101].
When the social bonds that individuals have to parents, peers, and important
social institutions, such as the school or the workplace are strong, they fear
that their potential criminal activity may jeopardize their relative position
in society and thus they refuse to run the risk of losing meaningful social
relationships, careers, and opportunities. Crime occurs when the forces that
bind people to society are weakened or broken[102].
Merton’s strain theory holds that crime is a
function of the conflict between cultural goals, purposes and interests that people
have and the means they can use to legally obtain them[103].
While cultural goals are the same for all, the ability to achieve these goals
is dependant on the socioeconomic position that each individual enjoys in
society. Informed by Durkheim’s functionalism[104],
Merton’s theory identifies the conditions which do not permit those in the
lower classes to attain cultural and social goals, such as prestige, monetary
success or middle class status. For Merton, lower classes are blocked from the
possibility of attaining these common goals –they receive an inferior
education, lower values, they lack valuable social connections, may face
discrimination in the job marketplace-[105].
So, lower class individuals feel anger, frustration and resentment which is
referred to as strain[106].
Sometimes, these people resort to alternative means of attaining society’s
cultural goals, such as the commission of crimes[107].
The major tenet of cultural deviance theory is that
conformity to the prevailing cultural norms of lower class society causes
crime. Lower class subculture has a unique set of values and beliefs[108],
which are invariably in conflict with conventional social norms[109].
Criminality is an expression of conformity to lower class subcultural
values[110].
Members of the working class commit crimes as they respond to the cultural
norms of their own class in an effort to deal with problems of social –middle
class- adjustment[111].
Social
learning theory holds that a person resorts to criminal activity when he has received an
excess of definitions, such as motives, attitudes, rationalizations,
techniques, and values, favorable to the commission of crimes over those
unfavorable to the violation of laws[112].
Criminal behavior is learned through social interaction in a process of
communication. For Edwin Sutherland, people learn the techniques and attitudes
of crime by association with criminal patterns within intimate personal groups.[113]
Labeling
theory
emphasizes that people become criminals when significant members of society
label them as such and they accept and assume those labels as part of their
personal identity[114].
As exemplified by Lemert, this takes place “when a
person begins to employ his deviant behavior or a role based upon it as a means
of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by
the consequent societal reaction to him[115]”.
Labeling theory is not concerned with why people originally engage in acts that
result in their being labeled -primary deviance. Its concern is with criminal
career formation and with the effects of labeling –the creation of a stigma and
the effect on self-image[116].
Astronauts, including
expedition and visiting crewmembers, all belong to middle or upper classes.
Astronauts are recruited from middle or upper class families, who live in
affluent neighborhoods. As a way of illustration, Canadian astronaut Julie
Payette came from a middle class Montreal family. She finished her high school
studies in Wales, worked for the Canadian affiliate of a multinational company
and studied in two of the most respected universities in Canada[117]. Likewise, US
astronaut Peter Jeff Wisoff also attended prestigious
US universities and worked as a researcher in a top university[118]. None of the
astronauts in any space program has ever come from a poor immigrant family who
does not speak the language of the majority and who has no access to social
institutions, such as the school or the middle-class job market[119]. Thus, social
disorganization theories, with their emphasis on the transition zone as the
main focus of criminality, and strain theories, which focus on the lower class’
impossibility to attain common goals, may not account for criminality in space.
Equally ineffective is cultural deviance theory –which links the commission of
crimes to conformity to lower class subcultural
values- as no astronaut has been raised in a lower class culture.
Astronauts receive a high
degree of social reinforcement from media attention. They are considered role
models[120] and
during the early stages of the space age they were regarded as true national
heroes[121].
Furthermore, they are very well remunerated[122],
they frequently appear before the media, give interviews, make public
appearances, give talks to students and act as role models for youths[123].
Additionally, only astronauts with a strong support network of family and
friends are recruited[124].
Therefore, it is easy to see that all astronauts have strong bonds with
society, which presumably they will not intend risking. So, control theory is ineffective to
account for outer space criminality. Equally so is social learning theory –which holds that criminality is a function
of individual socialization- as astronauts do not interact with criminal
offenders and may not have before they were recruited.
Since part of the
recruitment process also consists of analyzing whether candidates have had a
prior criminal record and those with even minimal criminal antecedents are
automatically disqualified, labeling
theory does not help either in understanding the occurrence of crimes in
outer space.
Sociological explanations
of crime also include situational or opportunity theories of crime, which focus
on the situation –place and time- of crime[125].
They comprise several theories, such as environmental theories that concentrate
on the location of crime, and victimization theories, such as routine activity
and lifestyle theories that center on the interrelation between victims and
offenders. Environmental criminologists hold that the physical and social
characteristics of the crime site play an essential role in criminality.
Environmental criminology is premised on the assumption that some people are
criminally motivated to commit crimes and that they do so in places where there
are opportunities for the commission of crimes. According to Cohen and Felson’s routine activities theory, the occurrence of crime
is closely related to the interaction of three variable: suitable targets, such
as homes containing easily saleable goods, the lack of capable guardians, such
as, police, homeowners, neighbors, friends, and relatives, and motivated
offenders, such as a large number of unemployed teenagers[126].
Lifestyle theories hold that people become crime victims because they have a
lifestyle that increases their exposure to criminal offenders, such as being
young, single, being with other young people, at night and living in an urban
area[127].
The International Space Station, as well as any other cohabitation experiences
in outer space, is a highly monitored and controlled environment where there
are actually few opportunities -in terms of environmentalist theories- for the
commission of crimes. The International Space Station does not fit the
characteristics of natural areas for crime identified by these theories –poor,
densely populated, highly transient neighborhoods in which commercial and
residential property exist side by side. Additionally, as explained above, it
is permanently controlled and monitored by a large group of highly qualified
professionals on earth - capable guardians- who follow all the crewmembers’
actions in outer space. Furthermore, crewmembers do not have the
characteristics of motivated offenders identified by routine activities or
lifestyles theories, such as, unemployed male teenagers. So, situational
theories are also incapable of providing a suitable explanation of criminality
in outer space.
Finally, another theory
–which also shares some characteristics with psychological explanations of
crime- also centers on location as the main reason for criminality, more
precisely on the effects of solitary spaces and confinement. For this theory,
conditions of confinement, particularly found in maximum security prisons and
other total security correctional institutions, where prisoners are completely
isolated for most of their time, generally cause mental deterioration in
isolated inmates and violence[128].
The effects of confinement directly produce problems of violence and crime.
But, this theory is also inapplicable to outer space because the confinement
conditions in outer space are completely different from the ones found in
prisons. First, inmates in maximum security prisons are already extremely
violent, have committed several of the most reprehensible crimes and many
suffer from mental problems. Second, their confinement in maximum security
prisons reinforces the stigma generally associated with criminal justice
convictions. Third, the conditions of confinement in these correctional
institutions –poor food, low levels of hygiene, and uncomfortable facilities-
are sometimes infrahuman. In outer space, conditions are unlike those in any
correctional facility. As examined before, astronauts have followed a very
rigorous selection and training process, where candidates with violent
personalities or with even minor psychological problems are invariably excluded
from space programs. Their presence in outer space is seen and followed with
admiration from all corners of the world, and they enjoy a certain level of
comfort, a very nutritional food plan, and a superior hygiene environment.
Thus, since the reasons which surround confinement in maximum security prisons
are inexistent in outer space, this theory cannot be extrapolated to explain
the causes of criminality in the International Space Station and in outer
space.
Critical theories tend to
attribute criminality to the capitalist system. Its major tenet is that
capitalism creates criminal behavior. It has a distinct political view of
crime. For these theories, the ruling class uses the law and criminal justice
system to advance its economic and social purposes[129].
Criminal laws are viewed as the product of the upper classes and crime is a
political concept to protect the power and the position of the upper classes at
the expense of the poor. Capitalism is the root cause of criminal behavior
because the human needs of the poor are ignored[130].
Capitalism increases the need to dominate by the capitalist class and the need
to accommodate and resist by the exploited class[131].
While outer space endeavors
have been and are sponsored by different types of states[132],
it is quite clear that those that participate in outer space missions are from
upper classes and may not be considered to be proletariat or otherwise
oppressed.
Critical criminology also
focuses on the crimes of the dominant class. These crimes have been attributed
to egoistic sentiments and a need to maintain and advance its socioeconomic
position at any cost. As examined above, upper class crimes revolve around
violations of basic human rights, the adoption of anticompetitive measures and
the manipulation of the legal system in pursuit of socioeconomic advantages,
among others.
As analyzed before, crimes
of astronauts in outer space resemble those crimes generally attributed to
lower, oppressed classes rather than those that critical criminology attributes
to the dominant elite, which astronauts clearly belong to. Thus, for example,
the examined experiences show that astronauts engage in sexual assault,
battery, and attempted murder rather than white collar crime[133].
So, critical criminology is also inadequate to account for criminality in outer
space.
Conclusions
The current International
Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement’s approach to criminal behavior is
based on a criminal justice regime which places a strong emphasis on the state
of nationality’s power to try its own national offenders, coupled with severe
disciplinary norms, which even include the use of physical force. This approach
is inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the variety of behavioral problems
which will be created[134]
as it is premised on a repressive approach which does not take into account the
unique needs of victims, including female victims, of crimes in outer space and
which does not address or propose specific solutions to prevent the occurrence
of criminal behavior in outer space.
The inadequacy of the
adopted criminal justice solution stems from the lack of understanding of the
nature and causes of criminality in outer space. None of the existing criminological
theoretical views can explain the commission of crimes in outer space. So,
until criminology comes up with a thorough understanding of the causes of crime
in outer space, the criminal justice system will lack the necessary theoretical
tools to design a criminal justice approach to effectively deal with these
conflicts.
Specific explanations of
crime in outer space will have to take into account the special characteristics
of the outer space environment, particularly its hostility to human habitability,
the isolation –but privileged- conditions of current and projected missions and
future settlements[135],
and emotional stress brought on by the monotony, confined space, sense of
danger and anxiety invariably present in all space endeavors[136].
A criminological theory of criminality in space will also have to explore the
psychological[137] and
biological[138]
effects that deprivation of their natural habitat causes on astronauts, the
physiological changes in the human body induced by a microgravity environment[139],
as well as the consequences of a lack of contact with other chemical elements
which people naturally count on and depend upon on a permanent and natural
fashion on earth[140].
Social relations are also
exceptional in outer space. An individual only interacts with a handful of
selected persons in an artificial social context under permanent and close
scrutiny. They also suffer from lack of unmediated contacts with family and
friends. Social processes and social relations in outer space have unique
characteristics that result in very different social interactions from those on
earth. Furthermore, these phenomena are compounded due to, among other things,
the involvement of more and more national cultures in long term space missions[141].
Power relationships are
also extraordinary. While all astronauts belong to a privileged class, their
power relationships in space cause anxiety and stress. These relations do not
have to do with ownership or lack of ownership of the means of production, with
possession or lack of possession of material resources or with Colvin’s
coercive disciplining methods. Rather, anxiety derived from power relationships
in outer space missions have to do with on ground versus in orbit conflicts[142],
with a very rigid and un-modifiable chain of command and with a complete lack
of freedom to deviate from a carefully tightly planned course of action[143].
All these exceptional
factors of life and social relations in outer space missions and settlements
have to be thoroughly explored in order to come up with a deeper understanding
of the causes of criminality in outer space[144].
As put forward by the literature, the “consequences of poor social planning
for space missions can be as severe as those of poor engineering.[145]”
* Assistant Professor, Dalhousie University,
Ph.D. (UCC), LL.M., (McGill), DCL (McGill), Postdoc
(Ottawa).
[1] Andre Farand,
Space Station Cooperation: Legal Arrangements, in Gabriel Lafferanderie
& Daphne Crowther (eds.) Outlook on Space Law
over the next 30 years (1997) 125.
[2] Lara L. Manzione,
“Multinational Investment in the Space Station: An Outer Space Model for
International Cooperation?” (2002) 18 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 507, 509.
[3] Rochus Moenter, “The International Space Station: Legal Framework
and Current Status” (1999) 64 J. Air L. & Com. 1033.
[4] Marcus Lindroos,
“The Space Shuttle docks with the International Space Station” Encyclopedia
Astronautica
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intation.htm accessed August 16, 2004.
[5] Agreement Among the Government of the
United States of America, Governments of Member States of the European Space
Agency, the Government of Japan (GOJ), and the Government of Canada on
Cooperation in the Detailed Design, Development, Operation, and the Utilization
of the Permanently Manned Civil Space Station, done Sept. 29, 1988.
[6] Ashe, III, Space Station Alpha:
International Shining Star or Legal Black Hole?, 9 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J.
333 (1995).
[7] Marcia S. Smith,
“Space Stations” http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/93-017.htm accessed August 6,
2004.
[8]Agreement among the government of Canada,
governments of Member States of the European Space Agency, the government of
Japan, the government of the Russian Federation, and the government of the
United States of America concerning Cooperation on the Civil International Space
Station, Jan. 29, 1998, 1998 U.S.T. Lexis 212 in reprinted in 4 United States
Space Law: National & International Regulation, § II.A.22 (Jan. 1989).
Brazil later joined the ISS
<http://www.spacelawstation.com/spacestation.html#3> accessed August 18,
2004.
[9] IGA, article
1.2. “The Partners will join their efforts, under the lead role of the United
States for overall management and coordination, to create an integrated
international Space Station.” Article 7.2. “. The United States, acting through
NASA, and in accordance with
the MOUs and implementing arrangements, shall be
responsible for management of its own program, including its utilization
activities. The United States, acting through NASA, and in accordance with the MOUs and implementing arrangements, shall also be
responsible for: overall program management and coordination of the Space
Station, except as otherwise provided in this Article and in the MOUs; overall system engineering and integration;
establishment of overall safety requirements and plans; and overall planning
for and coordination of the execution of the overall integrated operation of
the Space Station.”
[10] IGA, article 1.2. “The United States and
Russia, drawing on their extensive experience in human space flight, will
produce elements which serve as the foundation for the international Space
Station”.
[11] IGA, article 1.2.
[12]
http://www.estec.esa.nl/spaceflight/inissint.htm
[13] Rochus Moenter, “The International Space Station: Legal Framework
and Current Status” (1999) 64 J. Air L. & Com. 1033.
[14] Lawrence S. DeLucas,
International Space Law, (1996) 38 Acta Astronautica 613.
[15] NASA cuts back
plans for space station, July 24, 2004.
[16]Amy Otchet, “Space law lifts off for a new odyssey”, UNESCO
Courier, 1999. http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_06/uk/planete/txt1.htm.
[17] IGA, article 9.
[18] IGA, article 9.1.
[19] International Space Station, Wikipedia Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station accessed August 20,
2004.
[20] Alice Lagnado, Space tourist returns from $20-million trip to
paradise, The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: May 7,
2001 at A.5.
[21]
http://www.estec.esa.nl/spaceflight/inissint.htm
[22] Marcia
S. Smith, “Space Stations” http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/93-017.htm accessed
August 6, 2004.
[23]For an analysis of criminological and
criminal justice issues in outer space see Julian Hermida, Norms governing launch services by NASA and commercial US private
companies, (Ph.D. Thesis, Catholic University of Cordoba, 2000).
[24]Canadian decides to stay in Russian space study
despite harassment, Tuesday, March 28, 2000
http://www.canoe.com/CNEWSSpace0003/28_lapierre.html accessed August 3, 2004.
[25] Experiment
could have stopped, agency says: Unwanted sex advances by Russian were noted,
The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 26, 2000, at A.5.
[26]Catherine Ford, Culture of inequality plagues Russia,
Daily News. Halifax, N.S.: Apr 14, 2000, at. 16.
[27] Brad Evenson
Reporting harassment will help future
crews: Canadian National Post, Apr 11, 2000,
at A.10.
[28]Malcolm Gray, “A space dream sours” Maclean’s. Vol.113, Iss. 16; Toronto:
Apr 17, 2000, at 26.
[29]Malcolm Gray, “A space dream sours” Maclean’s. Vol.113, Iss. 16; Toronto:
Apr 17, 2000, at 26.
[30]Graeme Hamilton, Sex harassment claim hurts career: astronaut: 'I
didn't play the game': Commander's kiss simply a New Year’s greeting, Russians
say, National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Apr 4,
2001, at. A.11.
[31]Experiment could have
stopped, agency says: Unwanted sex advances by Russian were noted, The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 26, 2000,
at A.5.
[32] Joanne
Laucius, Women may be from Venus, but they can't go to Mars:
Female space travellers increase ‘probability of
conflicts’: Russian official The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa,
Ont.: Jun 10, 2001, at A.1.FRO
[33] Joanne
Laucius, Women may be from Venus, but they can't go to Mars:
Female space travellers increase ‘probability of
conflicts’: Russian official The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa,
Ont.: Jun 10, 2001, at A.1.FRO
[34] Patrick D. Nolan & Marilyn
Dudley-Rowley, “Effects of Organizational Structure on the Behavior and
Performance of Polar and Space Work Teams” (2000) American Sociological
Association (ASA).
[35] Liz Jefferson, Why do we ignore Lapierre’s harassment? The Ottawa
Citizen Ottawa, Ont.: Mar 30, 2000 at A.13.
[36] For a sociological analysis of sex and
gender in space, see Lisa Jean Moore and Monica J. Casper, “Lust in Space:
Sexuality and Gender on the Final Frontier” (1994) American Sociological
Association (ASA).
[37]Stacy J. Ratner,
“ Establishing the Extraterrestrial: Criminal Jurisdiction and the International Space Station”
(1999) 22 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 323.
[38] Julian Hermida, Norms governing launch services by NASA and commercial US private
companies, (Ph.D. Thesis, Catholic University of Cordoba, 2000).
[39] Outer Space Treaty, article VIII.
[40] Outer Space Treaty, article VIII.
[41] A. A. Cocca, “Registration of Space Objects”, in N. Jasentuliyana & R.S.K. Lee eds., Manual on Space Law (New York: Oceana, 1979) at 180.
[42]M. A. Ferrer, Derecho Espacial (Buenos Aires: Plus
Ultra, 1979) at 282.
[43] IGA, article 5. European states further
delegated this responsibility to the European Space Agency.
[44] Registration Convention, article II.2
“Where there are two or more launching States in respect of any such space
object, they shall jointly determine which one of them shall register the
object in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, bearing in mind the
provisions of article VIII of the Treaty on principles governing the activities
of States in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and
other celestial bodies, and without prejudice to appropriate agreements
concluded or to be concluded among the launching States on jurisdiction and
control over the space object and over any personnel thereof.”
[45]Julian Hermida, “Space Registry” (1996) 24 International Business Lawyer at 383.
[46] Julian Hermida Legal Basis for a National
Space Legislation (Dordrecht, Boston, and
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004) at 61.
[47] Stacy J. Ratner,
“ Establishing the Extraterrestrial: Criminal Jurisdiction and the International Space Station”
(1999) 22 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 323.
[48] Covey T. Oliver et al., The International
Legal System 133-35 (4th ed. 1995, at 165.
[49] IGA, article 22.1.
[50] Andrew J. Young, Law and Policy in the
Space Stations’ Era 152-53 (1989).
[51] IGA, article 22.2.
[52] The IGA is silent as to how to implement
in practice this concurrent jurisdiction. Stacy J. Ratner,
“Establishing the Extraterrestrial: Criminal Jurisdiction and the International Space Station”
(1999) 22 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 341.
[53]IGA, article 22.2(2).
[54] Mark R. Ruppert,
“Criminal Jurisdiction Over Environmental Offenses Committed Overseas: How to
Maximize and When to Say No” (1996) 40 A.F. L. Rev. 1.
[55] Agreement between the Parties to the North
Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of Their Forces, June 19, 1951, 4 U.S.T.
1792, 199 U.N.T.S. 67, article II.
[56] Article 11 of the IGA provides that each
partner in exercising its right to provide ISS crew must ensure that its crew
members observe a Code of Conduct for the maintenance of order and conduct of
crew activities in or on the Space Station.
[57] Each ISS crewmember has a right to know
about such additional requirements. ISS crewmembers will also abide by the
rules of the institution hosting the training, and by standards and
requirements defined by the Multilateral Crew Operations Panel (MCOP), the
Multilateral Space Medicine Board (MSMB) and the Multilateral Medical
Operations Panel (MMOP).
[58] Code of Conduct for the International
Space Station Crew - 14 CFR Part 1214 (Federal Register: December 21, 2000 Vol.
65, No. 246) [hereinafter “Code of Conduct”].
[59] Code of Conduct, I.B.
[60] Code of Conduct, II.B.
[61] Code of Conduct, II.B.
[62] Code of Conduct, III.A.1.
[63] Code of Conduct, III.A.2.
[64] Farand, A., The
Code of Conduct for International Space Station Crews, ESA,
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=343.
[65]Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principles of criminology (Philadelphia: Lippincott 1966); Richard Quinney,
Criminology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1979); Robert K. Merton, “Social
Structure and Anomie” (1938) American Sociological Review 3 672-82; Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1969); Edwin Lemert Social pathology
: a systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic
behavior (New York : McGraw-Hill, 1951); Willem Bonger,
Criminality and economic conditions (Boston: Little, Brown, and
Company, 1916); Richard Quinney, Class, state,
and crime: on the theory and practice of criminal justice (New
York: D. McKay Co., 1977); Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay,
“Juvenile delinquency and urban areas; a study of rates of delinquency in
relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American
cities” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969); Émile Durkheim, “The rules of
sociological method” (New York: Free Press, 1966), Cesare
Beccaria, On crimes and punishments
(Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., c1986); Cesare
Lombroso, Criminal man, according to the
classification of Cesare Lombroso
(Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1972); Thorsten Sellin, Culture conflict and crime. a report of the
Subcommittee on Delinquency of the Committee on Personality and Culture (New
York: Social Science Research Council, 1938); Mark Colvin, Crime
and coercion: an integrated theory of chronic criminality (New York: St.
Martin's Press, 2000).
[66] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 1.
[67] Kenneth W. Simons, “Rethinking Mental
States” (1992) 72 B.U.L. Rev. 463, 503. Thus, for example, it is common to find
partially utilitarian justifications emphasizing the deterrent value of legal
sanctions, which are retributive in their justification of the content of the
prohibition.
[68] Joshua Dressler,
Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd. ed. (New York: Lexis Nexis, 2001) at 22.
[69] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 16.
[70] Cesare Beccaria, On crimes and punishments
(Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., c1986).
[71] Cesare Lombroso, Criminal man, according to the classification
of Cesare Lombroso
(Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1972).
[72] William Healy, The individual
delinquent; a text-book of diagnosis and prognosis for all concerned in
understanding offenders (Boston Little, Brown 1915).
[73] Classical school theorists view crimes as
both offense-specific, i.e., offenders will react selectively to the
characteristics of the particular offense, and offender-specific, i.e., each
criminal makes decisions.
[74] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 17.
[75]Thus, deterrence becomes the central
purpose for punishment, which is conceived as a tool and not an end in itself.
To help prevent crime, punishment – and adjudication- should be swift, severe
and certain. A severe punishment, however, is only that which is severe enough
–but not more so- to outweigh the personal benefits derived from crime
commission. Paul J. Hofer & Mark H. Allenbaugh, “The Reason Behind the Rules: Finding and Using
the Philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines”, (2003) 40 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 19 at 60; Michael H. Marcus, “Comments on the
Model Penal Code: Sentencing Preliminary Draft No. 1” (2003) 30 Am. J. Crim. L. 135.
[76] Sandra Walklate,
Understanding Criminology: Current Theoretical Debates (Buckingham and
Philadelphia: Open University Press, 2003) at 16.
[77] Lyndon B. Johnson Center
http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/newsref/sts-jsc.html#sts-jsc-mcc accessed
August 20, 2004.
[78]
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Schedule.html
[79]Katherine S. Williams & Craig Johnstone, “The Politics of the Selective Gaze: Closed
Circuit Television and the Policing of Public Space” (2000) Crime, Law and
Social Change, 34, at 183.
[80]Nicholas Fyfe, “The Maximum Surveillance
Society: The Rise of CCTV” (2002) International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, 26 at 428.
[81] Cesare Lombroso, Criminal man, according to the classification
of Cesare Lombroso
(Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1972).
[82] Gina Lombroso Ferrero, “The Criminal Man” in Francis T. Cullen &
Robert Agnew (eds.) Criminological
Theory: Past to Present: Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co.,
1999) at 23.
[83] Cesare Lombroso, Criminal man, according to the classification
of Cesare Lombroso
(Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1972).
[84] Gina Lombroso Ferrero, “The Criminal Man” in Francis T. Cullen & Robert
Agnew (eds.) Criminological Theory: Past
to Present: Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 23.
[85] Gina Lombroso Ferrero, “The Criminal Man” in Francis T. Cullen &
Robert Agnew (eds.) Criminological
Theory: Past to Present: Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co.,
1999) at 23.
[86] William Healy, The individual
delinquent; a text-book of diagnosis and prognosis for all concerned in
understanding offenders (Boston Little, Brown 1915) 1.
[87]August Aichhorn,
Wayward Youth (New York, Viking Press 1966) 1.
[88] Jean Piaget, The moral judgement
of the child (Glencoe: Free Press 1948).
[89]Leonard D. Savitz
& Norman Johnston (eds.), Contemporary criminology (New York: Wiley,
1982).
[90] For an analysis of personality testing
data from final stage applicants to the NASA astronaut program, see D. M. Musson, G.M. Sandal & R. L. Helmreich,
“Personality characteristics and trait clusters in final stage astronaut
selection” (2004) Aviat Space Environ Med.
75(4) at 342.
[91]Henry S. F. Cooper, Jr., “The Loneliness of
the Long-Duration Astronaut” (1996) Air & Space/Smithsonian 11(2) at 36.
[92] E. V. Khrunov, I. F. Chekirda, & I. A. Kolosov, “Astronaut training in
airplane laboratories under weightless conditions, in preparation for work activity
in outer space” (1971) Voprosy Psychologii,
Vol. 17(5), 1971, at 30.
[93] Astronaut Career Model – Briefing Book,
version 1.0. June 15, 2001.
[94] Since astronauts are expected to be role
models they are selected on the basis of their moral standards.
[95]http://www.space.com/teachspace/module_astronaut_0900/become_astronaut_0900.html
accessed August 20, 2004.
[96] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 9.
[97] Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay,
“Juvenile delinquency and urban areas; a study of rates of delinquency in
relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American
cities” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969) at 164.
[98] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 96.
[99] Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay,
“Juvenile delinquency and urban areas; a study of rates of delinquency in
relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American
cities” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969) at 164.
[100] Travis Hirschi, Causes
of Delinquency (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969) at 164.
[101] Hirschi
identifies four elements of the bond to conventional society. These are: (i) attachment, i.e., sensitivity to the opinion of others
which permits the internalization of conventional norms, (ii) commitment, i.e.,
fear of risking important interests, (iii) involvement, i.e., lack of opportunities
to engage in criminal behavior due to heavy involvement in conventional
activities, (iv) belief, i.e., assent to conventional society’s value system.
Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1969) at 164.
[102] Travis Hirschi, Causes
of Delinquency (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969) at 164.
[103] Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and
Anomie” (1938) American Sociological Review 3 at 672.
[104] Emile Durkheim, Suicide
(New York: The Free Press, 1951), p. 209.
[105]Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 172.
[106] Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and
Anomie” (1938) American Sociological Review 3 at 672.
[107]Other alternative means include addiction
to alcohol and drugs. Robert K. Merton, “Social Structure and Anomie” (1938)
American Sociological Review 3 at 672.
[108] These include trouble, toughness,
smartness, excitement, fatalism and autonomy. Sandra J. Bell, Young Offenders and
Juvenile Justice: A century After the Fact, 2d. (Scarborough: Thomson Nelson,
2003) at 158.
[109]Thorsten Sellin, Culture
conflict and crime. a report of the Subcommittee on Delinquency of the
Committee on Personality and Culture (New York: Social Science Research
Council, 1938) at 63.
[110] Albert Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Culture
of the Gang (New York: Free Press, 1955) at 25.
[111]Thorsten Sellin, Culture
conflict and crime. a report of the Subcommittee on Delinquency of the
Committee on Personality and Culture (New York: Social Science Research
Council, 1938) at 63.
[112] Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principles of criminology (Philadelphia: Lippincott 1966) at 5.
[113] Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principles of criminology (Philadelphia: Lippincott 1966) at 5.
[114] Edwin Lemert Social
pathology: a systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic
behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951) at 75.
[115] Edwin Lemert Social
pathology: a systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic
behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951) at 75.
[116] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 295.
[117]
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/human_pre/cao/biopayette.asp
accessed August 7, 2004.
[118]
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/wisoff.html accessed August 7, 2004.
[119] Some astronauts, such as Fernando Caldeiro, who came from Buenos Aires, Argentina, or Michael
E. Lopez-Alegria, who came from Madrid, Spain, were
originally immigrants, but their families were of middle to upper class origin
and fit the social profile of other astronauts of non immigrant origin.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/caldeiro.html accessed August 7, 2004.
[120]Astronaut Career Model – Briefing Book section
4.1.3.6, version 1.0. June 15, 2001.
[121] Julian Hermida, Commercial Space Law:
International, National and Contractual Aspects (Buenos Aires: Ediciones
Depalma, 1997) 6.
[122] In the United States salaries for civilian
astronaut candidates are based on the Federal Government's General Schedule pay
scales for grades GS-11 through GS-14, and are set in accordance with each
individual's academic achievements and experience.
[123] Astronaut Career Model – Briefing Book,
version 1.0. June 15, 2001.
[124] Astronaut Career Model – Briefing Book,
version 1.0.
[125] Freda Adler,
Gerhard O.W. Mueller & William S. Laufer,
Criminology New York : McGraw Hill, 2004) at 215.
[126]Lawrence E. Cohen & Marcus Felson, “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine
Activity Approach” (1979) American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, at 588.
[127] Freda Adler,
Gerhard O.W. Mueller & William S. Laufer,
Criminology New York : McGraw Hill, 2004) at 233.
[128] Lorna A. Rhodes,
Total confinement: madness and reason in the maximum security prison (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 2004) at 1.
[129] Karl Marx, “Population, Crime and Pauperism”
in Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Ireland and the
Irish Question (Moscow, Progress Publishers 1971) at 92.
[130] Francis T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co., 1999) at 334.
[131] Criminology authors have exposed several
variations of critical criminology, which focus on different factors but which
all share the same general idea that capitalism creates criminality. For
example, Willem Bonger
claimed that the main cause of criminality is the mental state of egoism. For Bonger, egoism is rooted in economic relations fostered by
capitalism, such as ruthless competition and the exploitation of others in the
pursuit of individual profits. Bonger also recognizes
that capitalism creates crime among the bourgeoisie. Crimes are a product of a
bourgeois environment where economic advantage at any cost is a valued moral
principle. Willem Bonger, Criminality and economic
conditions (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1916) at 196. Francis
T. Cullen & Robert Agnew, Criminological
Theory: Past to Present: Essential Readings (Los Angeles: Roxbury Pub. Co.,
1999) at 335.
Richard Quinney’s theory centers on the proletariat’s struggle
against oppression by the capitalist class. The capitalist class commits crimes
in order to protect its interests and repress any challenge to its dominant
position. Its crimes deal with the violation of human rights, the commission of
economic crimes and the manipulation of the legal system to obtain economic
advantages. For the working class, crime constitutes a response to its severely
hard living conditions and often results in unconscious reactions to exploitation
and conscious acts of survival. Richard Quinney,
Class, state, and crime: on the theory and practice of criminal justice
(New York: D. McKay Co., 1977) at 60.
Mark Colvin focuses on
coercion as the main cause for crime. His major thesis is that the coercion
methods used in the secondary job market are transferred to the family, where
parents discipline their children coercively, even by resorting to the use of
physical force. For Colvin, this coercion is counterproductive as it weakens
bonds to parents and society, which ultimately leads to criminality. Mark
Colvin, Crime and coercion: an integrated theory of chronic criminality
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000) at 43.
[132] Julian Hermida Legal Basis for a National
Space Legislation (Dordrecht, Boston, and
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004) at xiv.
[133] Edwin H. Sutherland, “White Collar
Criminality” (1940) American Sociological Review Vol. 5 No. 1, at 2.
[134] Some authors have advocated for the
creation of a specific international treaty to govern all manned space missions
and settlements. Carl Q. Christol, Space Law: Past,
Present, and Future 200 (1991) at 200. Ashe, III, Space Station Alpha:
International Shining Star or Legal Black Hole?, (1995) 9 Temp. Int’l &
Comp. L.J. 362. Ashe argues that a space treaty governing inhabited space
stations or a WSO could provide a legal framework and forum upon which current
and future partners of Alpha could base their course of action. A treaty may
alleviate some of the international political pressures the current Partners
face. The debate between developed and developing nations could be partially
diffused if a treaty guaranteed specific rights (e.g., access rights to Alpha)
to developing, non-space faring nations. A treaty could ensure that the space
station will benefit all countries by enhancing such activities as
telecommunications, weather forecasting, natural resource exploitation,
environmental protection, crop and livestock disease control, air traffic
control, navigation, maritime and land rescue operations, secure transmissions
from satellites (e.g., copyright protection) and the limitation of damage from
accidental or natural disasters involving radioactive materials.”
[135] The Canadian Astronaut Office justified
the criminal behavior on the fact that people exposed to extreme conditions are
prone to commit crimes. Experiment
could have stopped, agency says: Unwanted sex advances by Russian were noted,
The Gazette. Montreal, Que.: Mar 26, 2000, at A.5.
[136] Alexei Arkhipovich
Leonov & Vladimir Ivanovich
Lebedev, “On the Problem of Psychological
Compatibility in Interplanetary Flight” (1972) Voprosy
filosofii, 26, at 14.
[137]Joseph F. Kubis & Edward J. Mclaughlin,
(1967) “Psychological Aspects of Space Flight” Transactions of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 30(2), at 320.
[138]D. R. Hamilton , D. Gloss D. “Cases in
space medicine” (2004) Aviat Space Environ Med. 75(3)
at 288.
[139] These changes include cardiovascular
degeneration, bone decalcification, decreased plasma volume, blood flow,
lymphocyte and eosinophil levels, altered hormonal
and electrolyte levels, muscle atrophy, decreased blood cell mass, increased
immunoglobulin A and M levels, and a decrease in the amount of microsomal P-450 and the activity of some of its dependent
enzymes. A. Graebe, E. L. Schuck,
P. Lensing, L. Putcha &
H. Derendorf, “Physiological, Pharmacokinetic,
and Pharmacodynamic Changes in Space” (2004)
J Clin Pharmacol. 44(8)
at 837.
[140] Richard J. Bord
& Robert E. O’Connor, “Risk Communication, Knowledge, and Attitudes:
Explaining Reactions to a Technology Perceived as Risky” (1990) Risk Analysis,
10 at 499.
[141] D. J. Kealey,
“Research on intercultural effectiveness and its relevance to multicultural
crews in space” (2004) Aviat Space Environ
Med. 75(7 Suppl) at C58-64.
[142]Studies have found that that both
crewmembers and mission control personnel displaced unpleasant emotions to
monitoring personnel outside of their group. N. Kanas,
“Group interactions during space missions” (2004) Aviat
Space Environ Med. 75(7 Suppl) at C3-5.
[143] Henry S. F. Cooper, Jr., “The Loneliness
of the Long-Duration Astronaut” (1996) Air & Space/Smithsonian 11(2) at 36.
[144] Additionally, the different effects of
long term and short term missions on human behavior must also be taken into
account. Similarly, a comprehensive theory on space criminality has to
explore the effects of intense and permanent control, scrutiny and supervision
of all aspects of astronauts’ activities, including professional and non
professional activities.
[145] T. Stephen Cheston,
The Psychology of Orbital Human Factors
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/psychology.html, accessed August 16, 2004.