Three decades ago one of my first books, Controlling State Crime (1995) was published by Garland. This edited volume was, in part, a response to Gregg Barak’s Crimes of the Capitalist State (1991), an edited collection that brought together critical research on state crime. While Barak and his contributors effectively framed key debates on the topic, I felt their analysis did not pay sufficient attention to the challenge of control. Although identifying examples and the causes of state crime is important, I argued that the more pressing issue was how to deter, prevent, or minimize it. This concern further led me to edit a follow-up book, Varieties of State Crime and Its Control, (Criminal Justice Press, 2000) which examined concrete strategies for controlling state crime in advanced industrialized democracies.
The Accessibility Barrier in Academic Publishing
When Controlling State Crime was first released, it retailed for about $80.00, making it largely inaccessible to individual scholars and students. Despite numerous positive reviews, the high cost likely limited its readership. Recognizing this drawback, the second edition of the book was published by Transaction Publishers in 2000 as a paperback, with a new introduction, at a more affordable price. The experience reinforced a lesson some academic authors learn over time: accessibility and affordability are often just as critical as content in determining a book’s impact.
Control vs. Resistance: A Diverging Focus
Over the past few decades, a handful of criminologists have examined resistance to state crime.Although resistance plays an essential role in challenging state crime, it does not, in itself, constitute an effective control mechanism. Resistance often emerges in reaction to state crime, but meaningful control requires institutional mechanisms, enforcement strategies, and accountability measures that prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place. In short, resistance may disrupt state crime but does not ensure its deterrence or systemic reduction.
Revisiting the Core Question: How Do We Control State Crime and Crimes of the Powerful?
After stepping away from this line of scholarship for some time, I re-engaged when Gregg Barak edited The Routledge Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful (2015). Moving the debate from state crimes to crimes of the powerful has been a significant conceptual development and reaffirmed my belief that the central challenge remains: How do we best control powerful actors? While academic perspectives on this issue have evolved, I continue to see control—not just resistance—as the more urgent issue to be understood and implemented.
Moving forward, we need to critically examine the effectiveness of existing informal and legal mechanisms, policy interventions, and enforcement structures. Have international legal frameworks such as the International Criminal Court deterred state crime? How has digital surveillance affected state accountability? What role do whistleblowers and the news media play in exposing and preventing state crime? These are the questions that continue to demand attention.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of Controlling State Crime, I am reminded that while our understanding of state crime (and crimes of the powerful) has deepened, the fundamental challenge remains the same: ensuring that state actors are held accountable and that control mechanisms are effective and enduring.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7712-scaled.jpg24282560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-16 04:28:582025-03-21 17:33:12Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of CONTROLLING STATE CRIME
In the coming weeks, college students will begin writing their dreaded end-of-semester essays.
But the landscape has changed. The rise of free, publicly available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools like ChatGPT and ClaudeAI has transformed how many students do their work.
Since these tools became widely accessible, reliance on them has skyrocketed, leaving educational institutions scrambling to determine the best response.
Should AI use be banned, permitted, or even encouraged? If we prohibit it, how do we realistically prevent students from using it? Some faculty murmur about AI detection tools, while others suggest returning to timed, in-class exams. But if we accept AI as part of the research and writing process, how do we ensure students use it as a tool rather than a crutch?
Regardless of institutional policy and practice, individual instructors must grapple with this reality: students are already using AI. The question is how we guide them to use it wisely.
Mediocrity vs. Excellence
In these crazy fast-paced times, I’m leaning hard on what Seth Godin has to say. AI will inevitably shape or replace many jobs in the coming years, but much of what it produces is generic and uninspired. If all you want is mediocrity, AI can deliver it. I agree.
That’s why I tell my students: if you’re aiming for a C, go ahead—type the assignment prompt into ChatGPT, copy the response, and submit it. You won’t learn much, but you might scrape by.
But here’s the catch: if you consistently settle for mediocrity, you’ll struggle to stand out in the crowded job market. Few employers hire people who regurgitate information.
They value individuals who think critically, synthesize ideas, and communicate with originality. If you let AI do all the work for you, you’re setting yourself up for failure, and training yourself to be replaceable.
A Smarter Approach to AI
I use AI every day. It’s faster and sometimes more effective than the Google searches I used to rely on. But I also recognize its limits. If I ask ChatGPT for the best Japanese restaurant in a neighborhood, and I have the time, that’s just a starting point—I still check Yelp, critically read reviews, and articles written by credible sources, and ultimately decide to try the establishment myself.
Students should use AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a tool for generating and refining ideas. AI can help create outlines, rephrase awkward sentences, or summarize complex concepts. But the real work—analyzing, questioning, and creating—still has to come from them.
Teaching Thoughtful AI Use
As educators, we’re navigating uncharted territory. Mistakes will be made. But our primary role isn’t to enforce rules—it’s to teach students how to use new technologies that will assist them responsibly and critically. Instead of asking whether AI should be banned or embraced, we should be asking: how do we cultivate excellence in an AI-driven world? Because in the end, it’s not about whether students use AI—it’s about how they use it.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7665.jpg7231642Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-09 04:35:152025-03-09 04:35:15AI and the Dreaded College Essay
Following Indiana Governor Mike Braun’s lead, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin recently signed an executive order enabling state and local law enforcement agencies (and jails) to assist federal authorities, specifically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in detaining and extraditing undocumented immigrants. This policy is neither new nor effective—it has been tried with predictable consequences, including strained community relations, legal challenges, and misallocation of law enforcement resources.
Focusing on law enforcement agencies, if police departments effectively manage crime control, order maintenance, and prevention, they have little surplus capacity to devote to federal immigration enforcement. Under Youngkin’s order, local agencies would be required to inquire about immigration status during arrests and notify ICE of undocumented individuals in custody—tasks that require additional training, personnel hours, and administrative resources.
Most agencies already operate with limited resources, and any excess funding, personnel, or expertise should be reinvested in initiatives that foster community engagement and reduce crime.
Law enforcement should focus on proven programs that build trust and deter criminal activity at its roots rather than acting as an extension of ICE.
For example, law enforcement agencies could strengthen their community policing efforts by engaging more with local schools and neighborhoods. Programs like the discontinued Police Athletic League (PAL) centers in Baltimore once provided police led after-school supervision, organized sports, and academic support—initiatives that have been shown to steer young people away from crime.
Rather than enabling federal immigration enforcement, which stretches resources thin and weakens public trust, state and local law enforcement agencies should focus on strategies that improve safety. Investing in community policing, youth engagement, and crime prevention programs is a far more effective and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Governors, law enforcement agencies, and communities need to carefully think through whether assisting ICE makes sense to deal with crime and illegal immigration. While it may align with current federal immigration priorities, the evidence suggests it does more harm than good for local public safety.
Photo Credit:
HSI Special Response Team (SRT) members training using armored vehicle at Fort Benning, Georgia
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/ICE_HSI_Special_Response_Team_SRT_training_using_armored_vehicle.jpg482720Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2025-03-02 04:52:212025-03-02 13:18:10Why Virginia’s Cooperation with ICE is a Misguided Policy & Practice
Reflections on the 30th Anniversary of CONTROLLING STATE CRIME
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThree decades ago one of my first books, Controlling State Crime (1995) was published by Garland. This edited volume was, in part, a response to Gregg Barak’s Crimes of the Capitalist State (1991), an edited collection that brought together critical research on state crime. While Barak and his contributors effectively framed key debates on the topic, I felt their analysis did not pay sufficient attention to the challenge of control. Although identifying examples and the causes of state crime is important, I argued that the more pressing issue was how to deter, prevent, or minimize it. This concern further led me to edit a follow-up book, Varieties of State Crime and Its Control, (Criminal Justice Press, 2000) which examined concrete strategies for controlling state crime in advanced industrialized democracies.
The Accessibility Barrier in Academic Publishing
When Controlling State Crime was first released, it retailed for about $80.00, making it largely inaccessible to individual scholars and students. Despite numerous positive reviews, the high cost likely limited its readership. Recognizing this drawback, the second edition of the book was published by Transaction Publishers in 2000 as a paperback, with a new introduction, at a more affordable price. The experience reinforced a lesson some academic authors learn over time: accessibility and affordability are often just as critical as content in determining a book’s impact.
Control vs. Resistance: A Diverging Focus
Over the past few decades, a handful of criminologists have examined resistance to state crime. Although resistance plays an essential role in challenging state crime, it does not, in itself, constitute an effective control mechanism. Resistance often emerges in reaction to state crime, but meaningful control requires institutional mechanisms, enforcement strategies, and accountability measures that prevent these crimes from occurring in the first place. In short, resistance may disrupt state crime but does not ensure its deterrence or systemic reduction.
Revisiting the Core Question: How Do We Control State Crime and Crimes of the Powerful?
After stepping away from this line of scholarship for some time, I re-engaged when Gregg Barak edited The Routledge Handbook of the Crimes of the Powerful (2015). Moving the debate from state crimes to crimes of the powerful has been a significant conceptual development and reaffirmed my belief that the central challenge remains: How do we best control powerful actors? While academic perspectives on this issue have evolved, I continue to see control—not just resistance—as the more urgent issue to be understood and implemented.
Moving forward, we need to critically examine the effectiveness of existing informal and legal mechanisms, policy interventions, and enforcement structures. Have international legal frameworks such as the International Criminal Court deterred state crime? How has digital surveillance affected state accountability? What role do whistleblowers and the news media play in exposing and preventing state crime? These are the questions that continue to demand attention.
As we mark the 30th anniversary of Controlling State Crime, I am reminded that while our understanding of state crime (and crimes of the powerful) has deepened, the fundamental challenge remains the same: ensuring that state actors are held accountable and that control mechanisms are effective and enduring.
AI and the Dreaded College Essay
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn the coming weeks, college students will begin writing their dreaded end-of-semester essays.
But the landscape has changed. The rise of free, publicly available Artificial Intelligence (AI) writing tools like ChatGPT and ClaudeAI has transformed how many students do their work.
Since these tools became widely accessible, reliance on them has skyrocketed, leaving educational institutions scrambling to determine the best response.
Should AI use be banned, permitted, or even encouraged? If we prohibit it, how do we realistically prevent students from using it? Some faculty murmur about AI detection tools, while others suggest returning to timed, in-class exams. But if we accept AI as part of the research and writing process, how do we ensure students use it as a tool rather than a crutch?
Regardless of institutional policy and practice, individual instructors must grapple with this reality: students are already using AI. The question is how we guide them to use it wisely.
Mediocrity vs. Excellence
In these crazy fast-paced times, I’m leaning hard on what Seth Godin has to say. AI will inevitably shape or replace many jobs in the coming years, but much of what it produces is generic and uninspired. If all you want is mediocrity, AI can deliver it. I agree.
That’s why I tell my students: if you’re aiming for a C, go ahead—type the assignment prompt into ChatGPT, copy the response, and submit it. You won’t learn much, but you might scrape by.
But here’s the catch: if you consistently settle for mediocrity, you’ll struggle to stand out in the crowded job market. Few employers hire people who regurgitate information.
They value individuals who think critically, synthesize ideas, and communicate with originality. If you let AI do all the work for you, you’re setting yourself up for failure, and training yourself to be replaceable.
A Smarter Approach to AI
I use AI every day. It’s faster and sometimes more effective than the Google searches I used to rely on. But I also recognize its limits. If I ask ChatGPT for the best Japanese restaurant in a neighborhood, and I have the time, that’s just a starting point—I still check Yelp, critically read reviews, and articles written by credible sources, and ultimately decide to try the establishment myself.
Students should use AI not as a substitute for thinking, but as a tool for generating and refining ideas. AI can help create outlines, rephrase awkward sentences, or summarize complex concepts. But the real work—analyzing, questioning, and creating—still has to come from them.
Teaching Thoughtful AI Use
As educators, we’re navigating uncharted territory. Mistakes will be made. But our primary role isn’t to enforce rules—it’s to teach students how to use new technologies that will assist them responsibly and critically. Instead of asking whether AI should be banned or embraced, we should be asking: how do we cultivate excellence in an AI-driven world? Because in the end, it’s not about whether students use AI—it’s about how they use it.
Why Virginia’s Cooperation with ICE is a Misguided Policy & Practice
/by Jeffrey Ian RossFollowing Indiana Governor Mike Braun’s lead, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin recently signed an executive order enabling state and local law enforcement agencies (and jails) to assist federal authorities, specifically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in detaining and extraditing undocumented immigrants. This policy is neither new nor effective—it has been tried with predictable consequences, including strained community relations, legal challenges, and misallocation of law enforcement resources.
Proponents of these efforts argue they enhance public safety by removing dangerous criminals and strengthening immigration enforcement. However, data from previous implementations challenges these claims. A 2019 study by the Cato Institute found no statistically significant impact on crime rates in jurisdictions that implemented similar cooperation agreements.
Focusing on law enforcement agencies, if police departments effectively manage crime control, order maintenance, and prevention, they have little surplus capacity to devote to federal immigration enforcement. Under Youngkin’s order, local agencies would be required to inquire about immigration status during arrests and notify ICE of undocumented individuals in custody—tasks that require additional training, personnel hours, and administrative resources.
Most agencies already operate with limited resources, and any excess funding, personnel, or expertise should be reinvested in initiatives that foster community engagement and reduce crime.
Law enforcement should focus on proven programs that build trust and deter criminal activity at its roots rather than acting as an extension of ICE.
For example, law enforcement agencies could strengthen their community policing efforts by engaging more with local schools and neighborhoods. Programs like the discontinued Police Athletic League (PAL) centers in Baltimore once provided police led after-school supervision, organized sports, and academic support—initiatives that have been shown to steer young people away from crime.
Similarly, the Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) program (including a very successful one operating in Alexandria, VA) has demonstrated long-term success in reducing gang involvement and delinquency among high school students. A 2013 longitudinal study found participants were 39% less likely to join gangs than their non-participating peers. Instead of diverting resources to immigration enforcement, law enforcement agencies should expand these evidence-based programs that directly contribute to public safety.
Past collaborations between local police and ICE have not only failed to reduce crime but have also undermined trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. A 2020 study by University of California San Diego Professor Tom K. Wong found that 287(g) agreements reduced crime reporting in Latino communities by approximately 22%. When local officers are seen as immigration enforcers, undocumented residents become less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or cooperate in investigations, making communities less safe for everyone.
Rather than enabling federal immigration enforcement, which stretches resources thin and weakens public trust, state and local law enforcement agencies should focus on strategies that improve safety. Investing in community policing, youth engagement, and crime prevention programs is a far more effective and responsible use of taxpayer dollars.
Governors, law enforcement agencies, and communities need to carefully think through whether assisting ICE makes sense to deal with crime and illegal immigration. While it may align with current federal immigration priorities, the evidence suggests it does more harm than good for local public safety.
Photo Credit:
HSI Special Response Team (SRT) members training using armored vehicle at Fort Benning, Georgia