The significance of public criminology has always been evident; on the other hand, not all criminologists understand its importance in inquiring state crimes. First of all, it is noteworthy to admit that “the position of public criminologist is both at odds with criminology’s commitment to normal science because it appears to involve moral choice”. It means that it is impossible to inquire a case and to punish a criminal making a moral choice; at the same time moral choice of the representatives of the government, which happened to commit a crime, must be investigated in the inquiry. Public criminology is an inevitable part of this procedure as it helps the criminologists to make their mind about the seriousness or, on the contrary, non-seriousness of the committed crime. If some moral laws were obeyed, it becomes even more harmful than the abeyance of the legal laws.
Furthermore, the importance of paying special attention to the state actions which are considered to be socially harmful is evident as, in this case, it is possible to prevent their dangerous and sometimes even shocking results such as millions of deaths. That is why all state actions which have ever caused any social injury must become a reason for punishment of the politicians who had allowed them. The example of such kind of crime is Nazi officials who are known to be prosecuted for various war crimes. One more example is the case of Ted Stevens, the Alaskan Senator, who was prosecuted for kickbacks and graft and he one of Heinrich Otto Abetz who was the German Ambassador to France, but his actions lead a state crime which was socially harmful. All types of crimes which included a social harm even for one citizen of the country should attract the attention of public criminologists.
The implications which influence the necessity of using public criminology is the fact that “juridical, conduct norm and social injury approaches to the meaning of crime remain operative in criminology today”. Taking into consideration the fact that social injury is a very significant aspect which must be taken into account in the inquiry, legalistic definition of crime, punishment, and sentence is not enough. While using public criminology, it is evident that the decision to punish the criminals is more unbiased as, in this case, the impact of the “socially harmful” crimes on the fates of the citizens of the state and each personality in particularly. It is an irrefutable fact that using public criminology results in stricter sentence, but, as a rule, it has even more positive consequences.
To begin with, if the representatives of the governments all over the world understand the imminence of negative consequences for them in case of any social crimes committed by them, they will take their actions more seriously. Impunity always leads to more violence, and, unfortunately, politicians are not an exception in this case.
Furthermore, the role of the state which is under a more critical and radical criminological perspective is integral as the commitment of socially harmful crimes is prevented as the government tries to do their best to control the possibility of any social injuries whereas the citizens of the state feel themselves more protected if such kind of control is guaranteed. Moreover, governments pay more attention to most social problems and the ways of their amelioration.
In conclusion, it is necessary to notify that some psychological and social insights into power are given by studying political crime from a public criminology approach. Furthermore, this kind of approach is so effective that there should be no limitations to studying state or state-corporate crime by means of applying to this approach as it provides accurate pieces of information about the consequences of the committed crime, and, in this way, it is possible to make the punishment more just.