OK, thanks, though I don't quite understand why you're linking me to a book. To be fair, you came on here and used the term 'zemiology' without defining it. In my opinion, you have not been clear. You seem to be saying that you think Jeremy's crime resulted in social harms, but my understanding of zemiology is that it is the study of social harms and injuries caused by organisations and institutions, so I am slightly confused.
Perhaps it's better if I stay out of the discussion, but I'm adding this post to explain my confusion. If you're asking us to agree that Jeremy's crimes had a social impact on people involved and wider groups of people, you'll hear no argument from me, but isn't that already obvious?
I just meant if you had access to library materials it was a good starting point as is anything from Hillyard, Tombs, Pemberton on google scholar.
The very definition of Zemiology has been contested in legal parlance and as yet no definitive definition has been found. It comes from the Greek word Zemia, although translating this into English has caused much debate from both an academic and a criminological perspective. The very nature of the definition is discussed at length in Hillyard and Tombs seminal 2004 work and by Pemberton in his later 2015 Harmful Societies book.
Social Harm and Zemiology (the study of social harms) can be used to assess harms caused by individuals, as well as organisations. My PhD is looking at accountability in light of the Hillsborough disaster, whereby in one chapter I consider the social harms caused by David Duckenfield both as an individual and as a member of SYP.
I’m merely opening up for discussion a new lens through which to view the JB case. To consider the social harms that may have been caused to numerous individuals or groups of individuals, following the 5 deaths. This then leads on to whether these were one off events that dissipated with time, whether they were cumulative or whether they are still ongoing.
