Jump to content
NZT48

terrorism and the law

Recommended Posts

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terror

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

 

Why do we need special laws for terrorism? I don't see why a terrorist killing ten people is any worse than any other mass murderer killing ten people. Are we now judging murder by how much of an emotion it creates? It seems to me terrorism is wrongly used as an excuse to further the authoritarian police state agenda. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when politicians stop listening to the people they are meant to represent, sometimes more violent are nessasary

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism may be a case of a few people killed,  but if the terrorist can pull it off, they'll aim to kill as many people as possible,.

Terrorism goes beyond mass murder. It's often a long term planned attack involving many would-be murderers. As such, we need specially trained people to preempt them. Such task forces have been proven to work....and sometimes we get lucky.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-15/rookie-asio-officer-thwarted-deadly-terror-attack/10498426

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference with terrorism is it threatens things to come rather than the one off killing. Trying to hold an entity to ransom. It says "We have done this terrible deed and we are capable of more if you don't meet our demands. 

 

That is why it is different from other murders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NZT48 said:

 

 I don't see why a terrorist killing ten people is any worse than any other mass murderer killing ten people

A terrorist supposes the backing of a larger organisation / ideology. " any other mass murderer "  doesn't generally require the backing of anyone really, as long as the person has the means to hand I'd think they'd probably prefer to have
no one else know  till they were ready  ... imo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

eveln has it, really.  Terrorism implies that the authorities and security forces are dealing with a large, well-run organisation, possibly with some broad community backing.  Other types of crimes generally involve individuals or a few people.

In this case, it also tends to fit with laws made especially to deal with the mafia or criminal bikie gangs.

Edited by Kothos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so Kothos.

The majority of the effort involved against terrorism is intel and counter terror, special forces.

The laws are much the same when applied in a court room as for example those used to convict the Manson family. They've just been  dusted off, re-labeled and filed under terror or anti-terror legislation to account for trying terrorists who are caught before they can commit acts of terror as well as after.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass murder is mass murder. Terrorism is murder, mass or otherwise, designed to cause fear by a group or person, usually with radical ideological beliefs. 

Thus it must be handled differently. Especially when it is a group, then it is essentially war against the government or people who are targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Why do we need special laws for terrorism? I don't see why a terrorist killing ten people is any worse than any other mass murderer killing ten people. Are we now judging murder by how much of an emotion it creates? It seems to me terrorism is wrongly used as an excuse to further the authoritarian police state agenda. What do you think?

youre conflating two different things.

authoritarian feature creep is one thing, whilst the need to have specific legislative responses to specific crimes is quite another.

one thing thats apparent right away is that terrorism entails a component of extortion.  usually not the financial kind, but however you term this component, its clear that the motive for terrorism often includes mass murder and/or the threat of it as a means to an end, rather than it being an end in itself, hence the nature of the crime is very different.   and that is just one additional aspect which doesnt begin to cover the full scope of transgressions.

it is unreasonable to view the Crimes Act is a fully complete recipe book from which an appropriate response can be cooked up from 3 count of this, 2 counts of that, and so on.   thats why it has been amended over time. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 4:11 PM, NZT48 said:

Are we now judging murder by how much of an emotion it creates? 

No.

Murder and manslaughter are different crimes, even though they are both charges of taking another person's life.

The difference is intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in your view what is a real or hypothetical example where terrorism-specific legislation is justified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where someone is planning or about to commit an act of terrorism? Seems a good place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NZT48 said:

So in your view what is a real or hypothetical example where terrorism-specific legislation is justified?

Where present legislation isn't effective.

Murder, assault, and conspiracy to commit some kinds of crimes are all currently illegal, right? 

So in your view, what is a real or hypothetical example where the current laws wouldn't suffice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, fliptopia said:

Where someone is planning or about to commit an act of terrorism? Seems a good place to start.

But why should that require special legislation? Why shouldn't it be treated the same as another planned mass murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

But why should that require special legislation? Why shouldn't it be treated the same as another planned mass murder?

Because it is designed to affect and change the actions of a mass of people/their  government,  rather than a single or small target group. I think we covered this.

edit: Also the average murder is, I believe, a person or maybe 2 working out how to kill one other person. Many terrorist attacks will involve man people. The average murderer will be trying to get away unseen. Terror without trying to be noticed just isn't terror. It's murder that is thrust in everyone's face and telling them they could be next.

 

Edited by fliptopia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×