NCJ Number
51643
Date Published
1978
Length
12 pages
Annotation
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS EMPLOYED BY STATES IN THE PROSECUTION OF TERRORISTS ARE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF THE TERRORIST AS A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED OFFENDER.
Abstract
THE IDEOLOGICALLY MOTIVATED OFFENDER IS ESSENTIALLY UNCONCERNED WITH THE FACT THAT SHE OR HE IS COMMITTING A VIOLATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW THAT EMBODIES CERTAIN SOCIAL VALUES AND THAT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE HARM TO INDIVIDUALS. CRIMINAL SANCTIONS CAN ONLY BE EFFECTIVE IF THE PERSONAL RISKS THAT THE OFFENDER MAY INCUR OUTWEIGH THE PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF THE POLITICAL OBJECTIVE. THUS, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION IS RELATIVE TO THE OFFENDER'S PERSONAL COMMITMENT TO IDEOLOGICAL PURPOSE. STRATEGIES OF VIOLENCE, WHETHER THEY BE WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE OR TRANSNATIONAL IN THEIR EFFECT, ARE SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM EXERCISING JURISDICTION, AND ALL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS INVARIABLY UTILIZE TWO FORMS OF SANCTIONS AGAINST VIOLENT OFFENDERS: THE DEATH PENALTY AND IMPRISONMENT. FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, BOTH ARE INEFFECTIVE. THE DEATH PENALTY FAILS AS A DETERRENT BECAUSE IT IS SELDOM APPLIED, TENDS TO MAKE MARTYRS OF THOSE EXECUTED, AND TENDS TO DISCREDIT THE SOCIETY THAT EMPLOYS IT. IMPRISONMENT FAILS BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON TWO ASSUMPTIONS: (1) THAT SANCTION WILL BE SUCH THAT IT WILL OUTWEIGH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLATION; AND (2) THE SANCTION WILL BE INCAPACITATIVE. WHILE THE FIRST ASSUMPTION CAN ONLY BE MADE IN TERMS OF GENERAL DETERRENCE THEORY, WHICH MAY NOT APPLY TO THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED OFFENDER, THE SECOND ASSUMPTION IS LIMITED BY THE PREVAILING PRACTICES OF CONDITIONAL RELEASE AND DEVELOPING THEORIES OF ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE GENERAL DETERRENT AND SIGNIFICANT INCAPACITATIVE MEASURES, STATES SHOULD FOCUS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PREVENTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFERENCE NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (KBL)