Green Criminology Perspective
Criminological IWT literature often adopts conventional criminological approaches to provide theoretical explanations and responses (see Hill, in press; Lemieux 2014; Pires and Clark 2011; Pires and Moreto 2011; Schneider 2012; Wellsmith 2010, 2011). The IWT presents a ‘suitable target’ in terms of Cohen and Felson’s (1979) routine activity theory— significant financial rewards and the absence of strong enforcement and punishment are motivation to offend. This perspective points to the motivation of the offender and, usefully, to other ‘essential’ causal factors such as situational characteristics and approaches (e.g. law enforcement).
Here we adopt a green criminology justice perspective because it encompasses eco and species justice, as well as concepts of rights, including environmental and ecosystem rights (as per White 2013). We acknowledge—which conventional criminology often fails to do— that acts may be harmful whether criminalized or not (see also Beirne and South 2007; Hillyard etal. 2004; Sollund 2015; White 2013), often resulting in victims being subjected to violence and death. We also prefer and use the term ‘abduction’, rather than ‘poaching’, for the act of forcefully removing animals from their habitat (see also Sollund 2011). We accept that these animals have individual interests and that if species justice is to be fulfilled, all animals must be considered victims whether they are traded legally or illegally (see also Sollund 2013).