Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice, and the Politics of Conscience - Jarrett S. Lovell

Published in 2009 by New York University Press, New York, NY and London, UK

256 pages

ISBN:9780814752272

LCC: JC328.3.L68 2009

During the summer of 2025, widespread protests were held in downtown Los Angeles, California as a response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raiding and arresting migrants and other individuals allegedly involved in illegal immigration. While most of the protest remained peaceful (save for the immolation of a couple of Waymo vehicles) and the majority of violence was sparked by escalation tactics by the LAPD and ICE, President Donald Trump used these events as a justification for federalizing the California National Guard, sending over 2,000 troops to the city. 

       As of the time of writing, approximately 2,800 people in LA have been arrested for expressing their dissent with the current state of affairs. The increasing militarization of the police and the willingness of the Trump administration to utilize the military against citizens are acute causes for concern. Furthermore, the cynical weaponization of antisemitism accusations has been employed to quell any criticism of the state of Israel and has further worked to silence dissent against an ongoing genocide by labeling those who express pro-Palestinian sentiments as “supporting terrorism.”

       When we think of the typical “criminal,” we often think of someone who attempts to clandestinely break the law, doing all that they can to evade arrest to continue their deviant and unlawful behavior. By contrast, many protestors who take to the streets and stage acts of resistance often openly accept the consequence of arrest, often to bring more attention to their cause. Likewise labeled as socially deviant and potentially criminal by the state, these protestors willingly accept the risk of arrest and detainment by the state in order to reveal its unjust nature. As such, what can the field of criminology contribute to theorizing these acts of unlawful disobedience to the state?  

       In his 2009 book, Crimes of Dissent: Civil Disobedience, Criminal Justice, and the Politics of Conscience, Jarrett S. Lovell offers a compelling reconceptualization of civil disobedience through the lens of cultural criminology. Drawing on anarchist political thought and in-depth interviews with over twenty activists who have collectively committed hundreds of acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, Lovell argues that acts of principled law-breaking should not be pathologized as deviant, but rather understood as morally conscious and culturally meaningful expressions of dissent.

Overview:

       Lovell examines “crimes of dissent,” which he defines as principled, nonviolent acts of civil disobedience across the political spectrum. These intentional, public violations of the law aim to change social or political injustices. He integrates anarchist and cultural criminological theory with the emotional and subcultural foundations of civil disobedience, analyzing the practical realities of policing and the legal engagement that activists utilize while incarcerated (such as affirmative defense, representing oneself, and turning trials into political forums).

       His central argument is that civil disobedience represents a morally principled form of crime (which he calls “pure crime”)  that should be understood within its cultural and political contexts. “Pure crime,” he contends, occurs when a violation of the law is undertaken for ethical rather than instrumental reasons, which are shown in the examples of Socrates, Antigone,  Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Mandela. Participants in “pure crime” consciously accept arrest and punishment as part of their political expression, differentiating their actions from other deviant behavior.

       Drawing from a range of interdisciplinary influences, including classical anarchist theory, civil disobedience literature, and cultural criminology, Lovell’s argument is further undergirded by extensive qualitative interviews with 21 activists who committed over 450 “crimes of conscience.” These narratives reveal how activists view arrest not as failure, but as fulfillment of ethical duty, and how legal proceedings are tactically transformed into platforms for political expression. He includes examples from across the political spectrum, from progressive activists protesting nuclear weapons and animal cruelty to conservative anti-abortion activists fueled by their religious convictions.

       He challenges the reader to reconsider what success means to activists, demonstrating that such acts are not merely instrumental in effecting change, but are often deeply symbolic and emotionally resonant for those who participate in them. There is a distinct “pleasure in transgressing legal norms” and fighting the system, providing meaning and community. Supportive activist communities formed through shared ideology and tactics can help individuals sustain repeated acts of dissent. As such, for activists, the impact of their actions is often long-term and relational rather than immediate. Success by this metric could be staying true to moral convictions, delaying an eviction, preventing a procedure, or raising awareness for a cause. 

Deeper Dive:

       In the First Chapter, Lovell frames the central question that undergirds his analysis: What transforms principled protest into criminalized dissent? He introduces his concept of “crimes of dissent,” which are deliberate, nonviolent violations against the law that are rooted in moral conviction. Drawing on interviews with activists, he explores why these actions merit analysis through a criminological lens and how they differ from other forms of deviance. The chapter blends theoretical grounding with these activist narratives, showing how moral impulses often clash with the legal system.

       In the Second Chapter, Lovell contextualizes the concept of dissent, both historically and socially. He provides a historical survey of the enduring American tradition of civil disobedience from abolitionists to contemporary anti‑war protests, framing these acts as reactions to systemic injustice. Utilizing Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents, Lovell articulates the tension between personal conscience and societal structures that constrain freedom. He also introduces cultural‑criminology themes, specifically how values that are misaligned with dominant laws foster dissatisfaction and dissent. Lovell doesn't hide his personal stance, as he advocates a form of anarchism that elevates individual conscience over state law. He calls on citizens to depend less on government and more on moral autonomy and provocatively suggests all “crimes of dissent” embody a “noble anarchy,” encouraging resistance when legal frameworks betray justice (48). 

       Central to Lovell’s argument, Chapter Three outlines what it means for civil disobedience to be what Lovell calls “pure crime.” Lovell examines the various strategies that are employed by people who refuse to go along with the law. Utilizing the examples of Antigone and Jesus Christ, Lovell argues that “pure crime” remains virtuous by its commitment to nonviolence. Thus, by their refusal to participate in (becoming a victim of) the violence of the state, participants in “pure crime” expose the limits of state power and open up spaces for “radical social transformation” (69). Organized into the three pillars of cultural criminology:

       Lovell makes sure to carefully define civil disobedience, which he argues has often been misused in activist discourses. According to Lovell, civil disobedience “is the deliberate violation of a law carried out as a form of protest…its practice is nonviolent and performed with the intent to educate or persuade a political majority of a perceived injustice” (73). It can also take multiple forms, such as “active dissent marked by a strategy of political intervention, or it can constitute passive dissent through a strategy of noncompliance with a policy” (73). 

       As such, Lovell critiques the law as neither neutral nor inherently just. He draws from anarchist thought to argue that legal systems are expressions of dominant power, often protecting the status quo. In this view, lawbreaking in defense of moral conscience is not pathological, but rational and ethical, since activists may view obedience to unjust laws as complicity in injustice. Thus, “pure crime” involves a conscious rejection of legal legitimacy. This is not a wholesale rejection of order itself, but rather of laws that conflict with higher ethical obligations. 

       Lovell also draws attention to a diverse political spectrum, including conservative dissenters like anti‑abortion activists, showing the universality of his "pure crime" concept. He highlights the role of liberation theology in motivating progressive religious movements such as the Catholic Worker, which staged acts of civil disobedience under what they saw as the higher law of God. He also highlights various strategies and examples of civil disobedience, such as sit-ins, trespassing, contempt of court, tax resistance, draft resistance, blockades, and other forms of economic noncooperation. All of these resistance tactics display to those in power the raised social costs of continuing the status quo and exert pressure on politicians and businesses to alter their practices and policies.

       Chapter Four turns toward the other side of the justice system, as Lovell delves into law enforcement’s response to civil disobedience. Lovell examines various methods of policing and how activists have experienced arrest, processing, and detention over the past two centuries. He highlights the gradual move from police responding to protests with a strong use of force to more recent strategies of police attempting to negotiate with protestors regarding the time, place, and tone of marches. One of the open questions that Lovell leaves open is whether, given the ever-increasing militarization of the police, contemporary policing is returning to more brute-force tactics to quell dissent and control crowds. 

       Lovell also examines the performance of dissent, as activists often choreograph their arrests and create public spectacles intended to amplify their message before even entering the criminal justice system. He is careful to note that such spectacles are often only within the purview of the privileged (often white), who are often treated more gently than their minority counterparts. He also takes time to speculate on the increasing role that surveillance is having on anticipating and suppressing domestic dissent, especially in the wake of the Patriot Act. 

       Following the chain of the criminal justice system, in Chapter Five, Lovell explores how activists engage the courts once they have been arrested. He first discusses the psychological impacts of imprisonment, noting the fear and isolation that can so easily grip inmates (though activists typically don’t suffer the same extreme conditions as other detainees). He examines various legal tactics that activists employ, including refusing cooperation, mutual support, affirmative defense, and representing oneself in the courtroom. By doing so, activists can often turn the trial into a platform for political speech and gain increased media coverage. Lovell notes that bargaining within the court system plays itself out like a game, which often relies overwhelmingly on luck. He critiques the structural inequities that all too often determine the outcomes that activists face. For example, white and wealthy defendants often gain advantages through resources, while marginalized activists face obstacles in accessing fair legal representation.

       In the Sixth Chapter, Lovell investigates what success looks like for dissenters. Rejecting a narrow, outcome-based perspective, he argues that impact may be relational (building networks), symbolic (shaping public discourse), or incremental (delaying an eviction, preventing a medical procedure/abortion). He emphasizes moral integrity over tangible outcomes and underscores the long-term, often intangible effects of dissent, such as developing community bonds that encourage us to take individual and communal action to effect change.  

       Finally, the Appendix contains detailed biographies of the 21 activists interviewed. Spanning anti-globalization, environmental, anti-abortion, tax resistance, housing, and peace movement activists, these profiles allow the reader to gain a clearer understanding of the interviewees that Lovell relied on for his qualitative analysis. This section humanizes the data and grounds the theoretical concepts in the lived experiences of each of these figures. 

Commendations:

       There are many notable strengths to Lovell’s account. First of all, one of the book’s core strengths lies in its interdisciplinary scope. Lovell successfully integrates canonical texts in civil disobedience (Thoreau, Gandhi, King) with contemporary anarchist thought (Bakunin and Kropotkin) and the affective, emotive turn in cultural studies (namely, Cohen, Ferrell, and Hayward). By combining his criminological background with anarchist theory and a broad historical approach, Lovell presents a novel and innovative thesis, opening up numerous avenues for discourse and debate. This makes Crimes of Dissent a valuable resource not only for criminologists but also for legal theorists and political sociologists interested in the lived dynamics of protest.

       Methodologically, the book’s strength lies in its qualitative approach. Unlike many abstract criminological texts, Lovell grounds his arguments in extensive qualitative interviews with real-world activists. The activists' voices, drawn from a range of social movements including environmental, anti-war, housing, and even anti-abortion groups, provide depth and nuance to Lovell’s theoretical claims. This gives Lovell’s argument an experiential dimension to complement the theory, capturing the emotional and moral complexity of resistance. These narratives reveal that dissent is not just ideological, but embodied and affective.

       Furthermore, this diversity supports his argument that the moral impulse behind dissent crosses ideological lines, complicating simplistic binaries between “left” and “right,” or “legal” and “criminal.” By conducting qualitative analysis of his 21 interview subjects, Lovell effectively humanizes these acts of dissent across the political spectrum. Even if the reader does not agree with these protestors’ politics or tactics, they will still empathize with their motives and marvel at their bravery (or at least their honest candor in bucking the system). 

       Lovell is also particularly effective in illuminating how activists engage with the criminal justice system, not as passive subjects but as strategic agents. Lovell details how protestors often co-opt legal processes as sites of resistance, where courtroom performance and legal narratives are crafted to expose and challenge state power. I found his engagement with courtroom strategy was a particularly fascinating exploration into a rarely explored phenomenon, as he examines the use of affirmative defenses, solidarity-based legal tactics, and self-representation. By reframing the arrest and trial of activists as "performative rituals,” Lovell offers keen insights into how activists repurpose the criminal justice system itself as a site of political contestation. As such, these chapters provide valuable insight for criminologists interested in the performative and oppositional dimensions of legality.

       Furthermore, the central concept of civil disobedience as “pure crime” (a violation of the law undertaken for ethical rather than instrumental reasons) is a provocative and theoretically intriguing addition to criminological vocabulary. Lovell argues that these acts are “pure” in the sense that they are done in pursuit of a moral vision, often with full awareness of the legal consequences. It invites criminologists to reconsider the moral terrain of crime as not pathological or economic, but as an expression of conscience and collective resistance. This move destabilizes the normative assumption that crime is inherently antisocial, reframing it instead as ethically aspirational. Lovell’s reorientation is intellectually bold and contributes meaningfully to cultural criminology, critical legal studies, and radical political theory.

       Finally, one of the book’s strongest assets is Lovell’s implicit call to radical democracy. He affirms the moral legitimacy of disobedience in the face of unjust law, reclaiming crime as an act of moral dissent rather than deviant pathology. His analysis challenges the common liberal proceduralism that has arrested (no pun intended) contemporary discourse by insisting that law is not above critique and conscience.

Critique:

       However, the book is not without limitations. While Lovell acknowledges the uneven distribution of legal consequences across race, class, and gender, these dynamics are insufficiently theorized. The core interviews that Lovell employs skew toward privileged sectors of activism who can afford to risk arrest, hire lawyers, or take time off work. The voices of working-class, Black, Indigenous, and migrant dissenters are largely absent, resulting in a conceptual framework that leans heavily on white, middle-class articulations of conscience. 

       While Lovell readily recognizes and accepts this limitation from the outset, for a field increasingly attentive to intersectionality and structural violence, this omission constrains the scope of Lovell’s analysis. It also skews the analysis toward forms of resistance that are symbolic and voluntary, largely ignoring dissent that arises from structural necessity, such as undocumented migration, prison uprisings, or racialized protest against police violence. As such, the book risks reproducing a limited view of dissent that privileges moral voluntarism over material struggle.

       Additionally, the book largely avoids engagement with the dynamics of contemporary political economy. There is little exploration of how the criminalization of dissent intersects with neoliberal governance, increasing militarization of the police, austerity measures, or the broader logics of carceral capitalism. Lovell under-theorizes the role of capitalism, state repression, and racialized governance in shaping both the criminalization of dissent and the uneven distribution of risk among protestors. A more robust engagement with the political economy of criminalization would have deepened the book’s radical potential and grounded its theorization of conscience within broader structural dynamics. As such, abolitionist scholars specializing in state repression, policing, and racialized punishment may find the analysis somewhat thin on structural critique.

       Furthermore, while Lovell celebrates the emotive and performative aspects of dissent, he occasionally veers into a romanticized depiction of disobedience, emphasizing the spiritual and affective pleasure of protest while giving less attention to the costs, failures, and traumas of resistance. These psychological and spiritual benefits of resistance, such as solidarity, empowerment, and moral clarity, are repeatedly emphasized over the strategic complexities and material costs of sustaining oppositional movements. As a result, the book risks overstating the efficacy of symbolic protest while underplaying the challenges of movement building, coalition politics, and transformative praxis.

       Moreover, his endorsement of anarchist autonomy raises difficult normative questions he does not fully resolve, particularly when activists’ consciences collide (as in the case of anti-abortion protestors or reactionary populists). While Lovell heavily leans into anarchist theory, his normative commitments remain somewhat ambiguous or inconsistent. He gestures toward a general ethic of individual conscience in the final chapter, but also avoids sustained theorization of whose conscience matters when values conflict (e.g., pro-life vs pro-choice activists). 

       As such, Lovell does not sufficiently grapple with the tension between libertarian moral autonomy and collective political responsibility. I found this ambivalence to be analytically frustrating, particularly when trying to distinguish principled resistance from reactionary law-breaking. For example, in Lovell’s framework, would January 6th insurrectionists be practicing the radical act of “pure crime”, as they legitimately believed the election was stolen and that they were following their moral compass in protecting democratic values? If our individual conscience is the ultimate guide for ethical behavior, then how do we balance the freedom of the individual over the good of the collective (aka. the central animating question of political philosophy)? What is the line between principled acts of civil disobedience and reactionary political action? If the inherent violence of the State is wholly untenable and democracy inevitably leads to a “tyranny of majority” (which Lovell incorrectly attributes to Rousseau instead of Tocqueville on page 45), then what does Lovell’s anarchist frame provide in terms of building alternative modes of existence, beyond merely gesturing toward vague notions of “mutual aid?” These questions remain largely unanswered, and they provide plenty to think about as we consider Lovell’s critique while fighting for the collective dignity of all peoples. 

Conclusion:

       Overall, Crimes of Dissent is a thought-provoking and original contribution to the study of political dissent and criminal justice. While short on theorizing beyond a narrow anarchist frame, lacking a larger systemic critique, and qualitative data constrained to the (overwhelmingly) white and middle-class views of his sample of interviewees, this work nevertheless opens new avenues for research on the various dimensions of political deviance.  It challenges foundational assumptions in criminology by inviting scholars to take seriously the moral dimensions of law-breaking, and it encourages critical reflection on the role of law itself as a contested terrain of power. As such, it is especially relevant for criminologists interested in resistance, protest policing, legal consciousness, and the ethics of law-breaking. 

       In an era marked by increasing state repression of protest and growing public scrutiny of law enforcement, Crimes of Dissent raises important questions about the relationship between law, morality, and justice. While best suited for scholars of critical and cultural criminology, the book also offers useful insights for practitioners and policymakers seeking to understand the motivations and dynamics behind contemporary protest movements. For scholars committed to radical democratic theory and emancipatory praxis, Lovell’s work provides both a conceptual toolkit and an invitation to reimagine the politics of crime. Lovell’s work reminds us that not all crimes are committed in pursuit of harm or gain. Some are committed in pursuit of a better world, and Lovells' work compels us to take the necessary steps toward a criminology that honors insurgency over order.