NCJ Number
115632
Date Published
1989
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This paper describes how the model conservative, liberal, and radical criminologists view, explain, and address terrorism; notes the shortcomings of each; and suggests a more promising hybrid approach.
Abstract
The conservative perspective, which tends to look for psychopathology or character defects in deviant behavior, views terrorists and 'sick' or morally deviant. The liberal perspective typically assumes that environmental conditioning spawns behavior. This view considers terrorists to be unfortunate victims of materially and/or culturally inadequate environments, albeit dangerous victims who must be apprehended and rehabilitated. Radical theorizing about crime focuses on the search for 'instrumental' (class, elite) or 'structural' (systemic political-economic) villains. Under this position, those who exercise violence against disapproved regimes are seeking justice; whereas, the repression of disapproved regimes constitutes terrorism. There is widespread agreement, however, that terrorism is organized political violence, publicity and intimidation are terrorist objectives, justifications for terrorism may be factual as well as fanciful, terrorists are political actors, terrorism varies according to a set of factors, terrorist incidents can be minimized by repression, and both positive and negative control measures are required to prevent terrorism. Some of the tenets of the proposed composite approach are that the incidence, prevalence, and forms of terrorist violence depend on opportunities, risks, resources, and impacts and that committed terrorists must be killed without ceremony to be controlled. 18 references.