terrorism laws and intent
if the law says terrorism is “the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy, conduct or activities of the government … through intimidation or coercion” (i believe this is from the virginia statute1 – the one that was invoked in the trials of the “dc snipers”)
what actions of the state fall into this description?
if the death penalty is justified a “deterrent,” does that make it a murder “intended to intimidate the civilian population” – and is the state then a terrorist organization?
i’ve often said that our judicial system is a barely-adequate and absolutely fallable mechanism for determining the facts of a crime, let alone the intent of the parties to that crime. show me a perfect way to read the heart and mind of a criminal, and then i will consider supporting laws based on intent.
if ashcroft can hack the law, so can i….
1 virginia code § 18.2-46.4
Do you, as a member of the civilian population, feel that you are being coerced or intimidated to do things you don’t want to do, due to fear of the death penalty? What actions or behavior — other than not killing and raping — are the terrorists in this scenario trying to force in the general populace? What government policies are they trying to influence by threating to kill people they find to be murderers?
The only behavioral change I can imagine as a result of a law-abiding person being intimidated by the death penalty would be to be extra careful not to get accused of a murder as he goes about his daily life, or to lie awake at night in fear of being accused. Which could happen to a few, I suppose, but that’s not the intent.
Comment by Bob S — January 13, 2004 @ 10:51 pm
as much as i appreciate the thought, the law is written to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” – not a “law abiding civilian population.” coercion to do the “right” thing is still coercion.
Comment by roj — January 14, 2004 @ 12:07 am
Is the threat of a long jail sentence, then, not also coercion? All are being forced to behave a certain way, regardless of whether the prospective sentence is life or death. The death penalty merely purports to get closer to 100% compliance — if you will, to scare the 0.5% who weren’t already scared.
And, I must disagree. A threat of punishment, even death, for doing something people are not inclined to do anyway does not meet the definition of coercion, at least for those people.
Comment by Bob S — January 14, 2004 @ 1:48 am
given the language of this law, it certainly could be… that gets to the question i asked in the original post…
what actions of the state fall into this description?
Comment by roj — January 14, 2004 @ 1:57 am
Terrorism, Coercion and the Death Penalty
Actually, I’m not going to write about all those heavy subjects here; I participated (am participating?) in a discussion on…
Trackback by One idiot's blog — January 14, 2004 @ 3:32 am