宗教作为动机——澳大利亚反恐法是否公正?

IF 1.8 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Rita Jabri Markwell
{"title":"宗教作为动机——澳大利亚反恐法是否公正?","authors":"Rita Jabri Markwell","doi":"10.5204/ijcjsd.2686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article will examine whether the category of religiously motivated terrorism serves justice in Australia, first considering its lawfulness from a human rights perspective and, secondly, examining its operation in the courtroom. Judicial comment in two cases, the subject of national media attention and complaints to the (New South Wales) NSW Judicial Commission, were used as a basis. This article finds that efforts to establish a ‘religious cause’ were stifled by complexity and ambiguity about the difference between Islamic adherence and violent extremism. Bias-prone assumptions had observable implications for the judicial assessment of the defendant’s culpability and rehabilitation prospects. Moreover, judicial reasoning seemed to overlook evidence of an intent to coerce the government or intimidate the public, treating religious beliefs and motives as a vehicle to establish intent. The article concludes that judicial education could help. Still, those measures would not fix the core of the problem. By removing the motive element, the issues would be avoided while focusing attention on the remaining intention elements. An alternative option is to remove ‘religious cause’ so that terrorism cases must demonstrate ‘ideological or political cause’, encouraging more precise and comparable reasoning across offending contexts.","PeriodicalId":51781,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religion as a Motive – Does Australian Terrorism Law Serve Justice?\",\"authors\":\"Rita Jabri Markwell\",\"doi\":\"10.5204/ijcjsd.2686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article will examine whether the category of religiously motivated terrorism serves justice in Australia, first considering its lawfulness from a human rights perspective and, secondly, examining its operation in the courtroom. Judicial comment in two cases, the subject of national media attention and complaints to the (New South Wales) NSW Judicial Commission, were used as a basis. This article finds that efforts to establish a ‘religious cause’ were stifled by complexity and ambiguity about the difference between Islamic adherence and violent extremism. Bias-prone assumptions had observable implications for the judicial assessment of the defendant’s culpability and rehabilitation prospects. Moreover, judicial reasoning seemed to overlook evidence of an intent to coerce the government or intimidate the public, treating religious beliefs and motives as a vehicle to establish intent. The article concludes that judicial education could help. Still, those measures would not fix the core of the problem. By removing the motive element, the issues would be avoided while focusing attention on the remaining intention elements. An alternative option is to remove ‘religious cause’ so that terrorism cases must demonstrate ‘ideological or political cause’, encouraging more precise and comparable reasoning across offending contexts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2686\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2686","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文将首先从人权的角度考虑其合法性,然后审查其在法庭上的运作,研究宗教动机的恐怖主义类别是否在澳大利亚伸张正义。两起案件的司法评论被用作依据,这两起案件是国家媒体关注的主题和向(新南威尔士州)新南威尔士州司法委员会提出的投诉。本文发现,建立“宗教事业”的努力被伊斯兰信仰与暴力极端主义之间的复杂性和模糊性所扼杀。容易产生偏见的假设对被告的罪责和康复前景的司法评估具有明显的影响。此外,司法推理似乎忽视了意图胁迫政府或恐吓公众的证据,将宗教信仰和动机视为确立意图的工具。文章的结论是,司法教育可以有所帮助。不过,这些措施并不能解决问题的核心。通过去除动机因素,可以避免这些问题,同时将注意力集中在剩余的意图因素上。另一种选择是删除“宗教原因”,这样恐怖主义案件必须证明“意识形态或政治原因”,鼓励在犯罪背景下更精确、更可比的推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Religion as a Motive – Does Australian Terrorism Law Serve Justice?
This article will examine whether the category of religiously motivated terrorism serves justice in Australia, first considering its lawfulness from a human rights perspective and, secondly, examining its operation in the courtroom. Judicial comment in two cases, the subject of national media attention and complaints to the (New South Wales) NSW Judicial Commission, were used as a basis. This article finds that efforts to establish a ‘religious cause’ were stifled by complexity and ambiguity about the difference between Islamic adherence and violent extremism. Bias-prone assumptions had observable implications for the judicial assessment of the defendant’s culpability and rehabilitation prospects. Moreover, judicial reasoning seemed to overlook evidence of an intent to coerce the government or intimidate the public, treating religious beliefs and motives as a vehicle to establish intent. The article concludes that judicial education could help. Still, those measures would not fix the core of the problem. By removing the motive element, the issues would be avoided while focusing attention on the remaining intention elements. An alternative option is to remove ‘religious cause’ so that terrorism cases must demonstrate ‘ideological or political cause’, encouraging more precise and comparable reasoning across offending contexts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信