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….