Book Review: The Crime of All Crimes: Towards a Criminology of Genocide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contending with a subject that has provoked sustained interest across many disciplines within the social sciences, Nicole Rafter's latest book is an important addition to the ever-expanding field of genocide studies, one which will be appreciated by scholars and students of genocide from, for instance, history, sociology, psychology, law, political science and international relations.That Rafter herself is aware of the attention from diverse audiences that her book might inevitably garner is evident from the skilful way in which she engages with and navigates through the wealth of existing multidisciplinary scholarship and research on genocide throughout her book.This is all the more impressive given that this was Rafter's very first book on genocide, having only taken an interest in genocide in recent years.For those deeply immersed in genocide studies and its evolving conceptual and empirical concerns, Rafter's book successfully speaks to, and builds upon, important work that has already been done in the field, particularly concerning colonial genocides, the gendered nature of genocides, and the micro-level variables that enable and sustains genocides.Meanwhile, for those newly acquainted with genocide studies, the book provides an accessible overview of the key debates and studies that have come to define the field.Rafter is a criminologist and her book, as its title suggests, is an examination of genocide from a criminological perspective.While criminologists have started to contribute to the study of genocide, this body of scholarship is still, as Rafter points out, relatively small.Rafter's key aim, therefore, is to demonstrate more forcefully how, and to what extent, criminology can contribute towards a better understanding of genocide.Rafter stamps her unique mark in contemporary genocide scholarship by weaving together an overarching framework to wrestle with the phenomenon that is genocide.Capitalizing on criminology's interdisciplinary character, Rafter draws upon ideas from political science, psychology, sociology, and legal philosophy to construct her analytical building blocks.The result is a comprehensive conceptual vocabulary for genocide, one aimed at simultaneously grappling with the macro, meso and micro elements of genocide.In this regard, a number of Rafter's novel conceptual ideas have the prospect of guiding future research on genocide.This includes her idea of "genocidal propensity," which is aimed at predicting which states are more predisposed towards committing genocides, in order to more effectively prevent genocides before they occur; the idea of "hot genocides," which indicates how the intensification of genocide's emotional dynamics mark turning points in genocidal violence; and finally, the idea that "genocidal organizations" create "states of exception," as a tool to mobilize genocidal destruction without fear of consequences.Rafter's empirical task is ambitious: a comparative study of eight historical cases of genocides, occurring across the world and covering the period between 1900 and 2000.Following a common position embraced by many genocide scholars, she adopts a definition of genocide that goes beyond the one currently enshrined in international law.The destruction of political groupsnotably excluded from the Genocide Convention-is added as a protected group in Rafter's analysis, alongside national, ethnic, racial and religious groups.This allows the genocide of the Herero by the German colonial army, the Armenians by the Ottoman Turks, Polish nationalists by Stalin, Indonesian anti-communists by Suharto's regime, political opponents by Pol Pot's regime, the Mayas by the Guatemalan state, and the Tutsis by the Rwandan Hutus to fall under the scope of her study.This is relatively uncontroversial; what is controversial, however, is her inclusion
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".