WHAT'S TERRORISM GOT TO DO WITH IT? THE PERILS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISUSE OF TERRORISM OFFENSES

michal buchhandler-raphael
{"title":"WHAT'S TERRORISM GOT TO DO WITH IT? THE PERILS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISUSE OF TERRORISM OFFENSES","authors":"michal buchhandler-raphael","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1909505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Federal and state legislation does not contain explicit “terrorism” offenses per se. Instead, various criminal provisions prohibit a wide array of specified crimes that are commonly perceived as terrorism-related crimes. While these offenses do not make the definition of terrorism an element of the crime, the terrorism classification is inferred based on features that typically – though not necessarily -- characterize crimes of terrorism, such as the scope of the harm intended or inflicted and the nature of the technical measures used to carry out the attack. These offenses, however, are too broad and ambiguous, covering a wide variety of crimes unrelated to the terrorism context. The Article’s key thesis is two-pronged: It suggests that empirically, the criminal justice system has failed to accurately distinguish between “terrorism” and “ordinary” crime. This failure may be attributed both to a doctrinal problem of definition: the distinct features of terrorism, mainly the defendant’s political motivation, are not made elements of the offense, and to an institutional problem of misclassification: unlimited prosecutorial discretion enables prosecutors to misuse terrorism-related offenses in cases that are unrelated to terrorism. Furthermore, the Article contends that normatively, drawing clear legal boundaries between “ordinary” crime and terrorism is a warranted enforcement policy, due to the numerous implications of misclassification. The Article examines the risks and unintended consequences of existing prosecutorial practices, ranging from treating similarly situated defendants differently to opening the door to additional applications of terrorism-related offenses in contexts such as drug trafficking.To alleviate these concerns, the Article proposes legislative reform designed both to constrain prosecutorial discretion and to limit the use of terrorism-related offenses only to actual crimes of terrorism by making specific intent to coerce governments to change their actions and policies a necessary element of terrorism crimes.","PeriodicalId":81266,"journal":{"name":"Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Florida State University law review. Florida State University. College of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1909505","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Federal and state legislation does not contain explicit “terrorism” offenses per se. Instead, various criminal provisions prohibit a wide array of specified crimes that are commonly perceived as terrorism-related crimes. While these offenses do not make the definition of terrorism an element of the crime, the terrorism classification is inferred based on features that typically – though not necessarily -- characterize crimes of terrorism, such as the scope of the harm intended or inflicted and the nature of the technical measures used to carry out the attack. These offenses, however, are too broad and ambiguous, covering a wide variety of crimes unrelated to the terrorism context. The Article’s key thesis is two-pronged: It suggests that empirically, the criminal justice system has failed to accurately distinguish between “terrorism” and “ordinary” crime. This failure may be attributed both to a doctrinal problem of definition: the distinct features of terrorism, mainly the defendant’s political motivation, are not made elements of the offense, and to an institutional problem of misclassification: unlimited prosecutorial discretion enables prosecutors to misuse terrorism-related offenses in cases that are unrelated to terrorism. Furthermore, the Article contends that normatively, drawing clear legal boundaries between “ordinary” crime and terrorism is a warranted enforcement policy, due to the numerous implications of misclassification. The Article examines the risks and unintended consequences of existing prosecutorial practices, ranging from treating similarly situated defendants differently to opening the door to additional applications of terrorism-related offenses in contexts such as drug trafficking.To alleviate these concerns, the Article proposes legislative reform designed both to constrain prosecutorial discretion and to limit the use of terrorism-related offenses only to actual crimes of terrorism by making specific intent to coerce governments to change their actions and policies a necessary element of terrorism crimes.
这跟恐怖主义有什么关系?起诉滥用恐怖主义罪行的危险
联邦和州立法本身并没有明确规定“恐怖主义”罪行。相反,各种刑事条款禁止一系列通常被认为与恐怖主义有关的具体罪行。虽然这些罪行没有使恐怖主义的定义成为犯罪的一个要素,但恐怖主义的分类是根据恐怖主义罪行的典型特征(虽然不一定)来推断的,例如意图或造成的伤害的范围以及用于进行攻击的技术措施的性质。然而,这些罪行过于宽泛和模糊,涵盖了与恐怖主义背景无关的各种罪行。这篇文章的关键论点是双管齐下的:它表明,从经验上看,刑事司法系统未能准确区分“恐怖主义”和“普通”犯罪。这一失败可归因于两个方面的理论问题:恐怖主义的明显特征,主要是被告的政治动机,并不是犯罪的要素;也可归因于错误分类的体制问题:无限的起诉自由裁量权使检察官在与恐怖主义无关的案件中滥用与恐怖主义有关的罪行。此外,该条认为,在“普通”犯罪和恐怖主义之间划清法律界限从规范上讲是一项有根据的执法政策,因为错误分类会产生许多影响。本文审查了现有检察做法的风险和意想不到的后果,从区别对待处境相似的被告到在贩毒等情况下为与恐怖主义有关的罪行的额外适用打开大门。为了减轻这些担忧,该条建议进行立法改革,旨在限制检察官的自由裁量权,并通过将强迫政府改变其行为和政策的具体意图作为恐怖主义犯罪的必要要素,将与恐怖主义有关的犯罪限制在实际的恐怖主义犯罪中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书