Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a CultureThe shared symbols, beliefs, values, and practices of a group or society. of Fear (2007) is an influential work by American legal sociologist Jonathan Simon. Simon demonstrates how the fight against crime has become a comprehensive governmental paradigm in the United States since the 1970s—with far-reaching consequences for democratic institutions, social relations, and political agency. For Simon, “governing through crime” is more than a security strategy: it is a cultural mode of organizing society, centered around fear, control, and exclusion.
Social Context and Theoretical Framework
Simon’s analysis is embedded in the transformation of Western welfare states, particularly the shift from social-democratic Fordism to the neoliberal security state. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality, Simon argues that crime is no longer merely a problem but has become a central technology of governance: social conflicts are criminalized, political responsibility is delegitimized, and state action is reduced to promises of security.
“Governing through crime” means that crime rhetoric becomes the dominant mode of governance—through legislation, media narratives, education, family, and social policy. Simon speaks of a “culture of fear” that undermines democratic processes and establishes state legitimacy through the promise of safety.
One of Simon’s most striking insights is the role of the crime victim: no longer merely an object of state protection, the victim becomes a political legitimization figure—especially in populist discourses where toughness is equated with justice.
Key Points
Governing Through Crime by Jonathan Simon
Author: Jonathan Simon
First Published: 2007
Country: USA
Core Idea: CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state. is not just an object of criminal law but a central paradigm of governance in modern democracies. Social issues are reframed as security problems.
Key Concepts: GovernmentalityA concept describing the way in which the state exercises control over the population through subtle and dispersed mechanisms of power., Crime Governance, Culture of Fear, Zero Tolerance, Responsibilization, Security State
Central Arguments
Simon’s main thesis is that since the 1970s, the meaning of crime in Western democracies has fundamentally changed. Crime is no longer merely a legal or administrative issue—it becomes a paradigm of governance, a universal framework for interpreting social problems and a strategic tool for exercising power. The state increasingly governs “through crime” by framing policy areas—from education and family to urban development—under the primacy of crime control.
This shift entails a transformation of democratic institutions: schools, welfare agencies, and housing authorities are no longer viewed as sites of support but as risk zones focused on preventing deviant trajectories. These institutions are reorganized through new control technologies, regulations, and management practices—in line with the logic of the preventive security state.
A key mechanism is the emotional mobilization of fear. Simon shows how insecurity, media rhetoric, and populist narratives prepare the public to accept repressive measures. Fear becomes a governing resource—justifying infringements on civil liberties, expanded police powers, and harsh sentencing, often in the name of victims or community protection.
This development is accompanied by a politics of irresponsibility. Structural inequalities—poverty, lack of education, social exclusion—are depoliticized and individualized. Rather than addressing root causes, the focus shifts to “risk factors”: individuals, families, or groups are marked as potentially dangerous due to their deviation from the norm. Social policy becomes risk prevention; the welfare state becomes a control regime.
In this context, “law and order” is more than a political slogan—it is a discursive ordering principle that simplifies complex social issues into moral oppositions (e.g., “decent citizens” vs. “criminals”) and legitimizes repressive responses. This creates a culture of governability in which security becomes the highest state priority.
Institutional Examples
Simon illustrates these developments through various institutions:
- Family: Parents in precarious situations are broadly suspected of endangering their children. Child protection laws serve increasingly as behavioral control instruments. Single mothers or young fathers in “problem neighborhoods” are framed as risks rather than people in need of support.
- Education: Schools become security zones. Instead of pedagogical intervention, many institutions adopt zero tolerance policies: police presence, surveillance cameras, and strict discipline replace trust and social support. Schools become part of the criminal justice pipeline.
- Urban Policy: Cities are reorganized under the logic of security. The Broken WindowsA theory that minor disorder leads to serious crime if left unchecked. Theory is used to justify surveillance, hostile architecture, and the exclusion of unwanted groups from public spaces. Public areas lose their openness and become zones of selective access.
Simon reveals a disturbing pattern: social problems are redefined as security issues. Where once negotiation, care, or welfare intervention stood, we now find criminal rhetoric, control, and exclusion. Democracy does not disappear but is gradually reshaped—through a recoding of its logic, where control replaces integration.
Further Reflection: From Cohen to Simon
Both Stanley Cohen’s Visions of Social Control (1985) and Jonathan Simon’s Governing Through Crime (2007) analyze the expansion and transformation of social control. While Cohen emphasizes the diffusion, diversification, and medicalization of control in the welfare state, Simon shows how the US has established a hegemonic security logic in which governance increasingly operates through crime rhetoric.
Cohen’s work provides the theoretical foundation that Simon extends into a political-criminological critique of governance in an era where control is centralized and politicized.
Further Reflection: Garland vs. Simon
David Garland analyzes in The Culture of Control (2001) how penal policies have changed in response to broader societal transformations since the 1970s—urbanization, social disintegration, and rising uncertainty. He argues that the new “culture of control” is a reaction to these shifts, characterized by punitiveness, risk governance, and mass incarceration.
Jonathan Simon, in contrast, contends in Governing Through Crime (2007) that what changed is not crime itself but political rationality. Crime becomes a universal governance framework through which social problems in education, family, and urban life are reframed as security issues and addressed repressively.
Key Difference:
- Garland: Penal policy as a (mediated) response to societal change
- Simon: Penal policy as an active tool of governance—even without rising crime rates
Both theorists analyze the securitization of Western societies—Garland more structurally, Simon more power-analytically.
Relevance for Criminology
Simon’s work is essential for critical criminology, as it treats criminal law and penal policy not merely as responses to crime, but as functional practices of control and power distribution. His analysis resonates with cultural criminology, surveillance studies, and political sociology. Especially with regard to the U.S. system—but also in a European context—Governing Through Crime provides a critical toolkit to analyze:
- Symbolic politics in crime control
- CriminalizationThe process of defining and enforcing behaviors as criminal. of migration, youth, and poverty
- Political discourses of “internal security”
Connection to Securitization
The concept of securitization stems from the Copenhagen School of International Relations (Buzan, Wæver, de Wilde, 1998). It describes a process in which political actors frame certain issues—such as migration, crime, or public health—as existential threats to the survival of a referent object (e.g., the state, society, or identity). By declaring something a security issue, it is moved out of the realm of normal politics and into a zone of emergency governance—legitimizing extraordinary measures.
Although Jonathan Simon does not use the term explicitly, his analysis of governing through crime aligns with this logic. He shows how crime becomes the dominant political lens in American governance since the 1970s. Institutions such as schools, families, and cities are no longer primarily seen as social domains but as potential risk zones. Their governance shifts accordingly—from welfare and pedagogy to surveillance and repression.
Like securitization, this process normalizes a state of exception: integration and participation give way to risk management and exclusion. Simon thus offers a domestic, criminological variant of securitization theory—revealing how “internal security” has become a central governmental technology in liberal democracies.
Conclusion
Governing Through Crime is a comprehensive analysis of the security-driven structural transformation of modern democracies. Jonathan Simon exposes the cultural underpinnings of the “war on crime” and shows how deeply crime rhetoric penetrates policy areas traditionally associated with welfare. The book is a key reference for critically examining the present and future of punishment in the neoliberal era.
Although Simon focuses primarily on the U.S., comparable dynamics can be observed in Europe—particularly in the treatment of migration, internal security, and the reorganization of public spaces. The blanket criminalization of groups and the securitization of politics are by no means exclusive to the United States.
During Donald Trump’s presidency, political opponents, migrants, and urban elites were systematically associated with crime. Phrases like “Law and Order”, “American Carnage”, and the demonization of “Sanctuary Cities” served not actual security but a mode of governance based on fear, scapegoating, and authoritarianism. Simon’s insight that the “crime victim” becomes a moral anchor of political mobilization is also evident: victim narratives were emotionally amplified, often devoid of structural context, and used to justify repression and executive power.Simon’s framework helps interpret current developments:
- Crime rhetoric as a political weapon: Under Trump, the strategies Simon described became extreme—amplified via Twitter/X or Truth Social as direct channels of affective criminalization.
- Shift in governance: Complex issues like migration, inequality, or education were reduced to “crime control”—less for solutions, more for power consolidation.
- Global relevance: Similar patterns can be seen in Brazil (Bolsonaro), Hungary (Orbán), and elsewhere—affirming the international applicability of Simon’s analysis.
In short: Governing Through Crime is more relevant than ever—as an analytical tool for identifying authoritarian trends and as a warning against a political culture that prioritizes control over integration and fear over trust.
References
- Simon, J. (2007). Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
- Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage.
- Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
