Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Defense Attorney: My client, Abu Jihadi, is NO terrorist, only an ordinary criminal
Prosecutor: But he blew up a bus and killed 50 people!
Defense Attorney: He did so only because no one in the area was paying protection money, ergo it was not terrorism
Prosecutor: He hated the locals cause they didnt follow Sharia, sold alcohol, wore western clothes, etc
Defense Attorney: Prove it.

Show statements by the person, or show that the person is a member of an organization with the stated goal to enforce sharia.

Is that enough, if it cant be proved that THIS particular act was intended with to enforce sharia? If someone who supports the enforcement of Sharia mugs someone, is that terrorism? What if someone advocates the establishment of Sharia law by PEACEFUL means? "My client is a member of the muslim brotherhood, which calls for establishing sharia through elections - he just also happens to a be a member of an extortion gang, that happens to blow up buses - its up to the state to prove a connection"

"Or yes, my client has called for violence to establish Sharia, but no where can it be proven he called for women to dress a certain way - the only aspects of Sharia he called for were collection of certain tithes and taxes - I dare the prosecution to show how thats differetnt from protection paid to the Crips, without invoking my clients religion against him"

Definitions of crimes that depend on the social intentions of the criminal are problematic - kinda like with hate crimes. It would seem better to define them by the IMPACT they have, rather than the criminals intention.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by St Leo
If I hijack an airliner demanding ten bags of gold bullion and a fully-fuelled fleet of Hummers, am I a terrorist?

Only if you believe in a religion that requires you to drive a hummer

[Imran Siddiqui]

Definitions of crimes that depend on the social intentions of the criminal are problematic - kinda like with hate crimes. It would seem better to define them by the IMPACT they have, rather than the criminals intention.

Um... that is why you have a jury. To decide on the facts. And the criminal's intention is decided in most criminal trials (where the crime is not strict liability). In fact that is the meaning of the word mens rea (the guilty mind).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Definitions of crimes that depend on the social intentions of the criminal are problematic - kinda like with hate crimes. It would seem better to define them by the IMPACT they have, rather than the criminals intention.

Um... that is why you have a jury. To decide on the facts. And the criminal's intention is decided in most criminal trials (where the crime is not strict liability). In fact that is the meaning of the word mens rea (the guilty mind).

Help me - isnt that usually only his intention to commit that crime (IE was he trying hit the victim in the head, or was he trying to shoot to warn but missed, etc) a simpler issue than the question of motivation (did he shoot the victim in the head cause the victim was black, or cause he wanted the victims money, etc)

[Imran Siddiqui]

isnt that usually only his intention to commit that crime (IE was he trying hit the victim in the head, or was he trying to shoot to warn but missed, etc) a simpler issue than the question of motivation (did he shoot the victim in the head cause the victim was black, or cause he wanted the victims money, etc)

Sometimes. Sometimes, not; however. Questions of whether an accused really intended to commit a crime can get really complex and bogged down in very minor things. And motivation is also taking into account in deciding if a death was really murder or manslaughter (like when a guy runs over someone with his car). All mens rea issues can be tricky, but are essential to our criminal law system.

[Mercator]

There's only one thing in that article that bothers me, and that's the fact that "terrorists" are treated differently at all:

If the charges did not include the terrorism stipulation, he would face a sentence of 25 years to life if found guilty. With the stipulation, he faces a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Why exactly is that? Is it somehow worse if I kill someone in a terroristic fashion?
I would think that this would really only be applicable for bombings with multiple victims anyway. In that case you could sentence them to X times 25 years anyway (plus attempted murder charges for all those who didn't die), so what's the point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

isnt that usually only his intention to commit that crime (IE was he trying hit the victim in the head, or was he trying to shoot to warn but missed, etc) a simpler issue than the question of motivation (did he shoot the victim in the head cause the victim was black, or cause he wanted the victims money, etc)

Sometimes. Sometimes, not; however. Questions of whether an accused really intended to commit a crime can get really complex and bogged down in very minor things. And motivation is also taking into account in deciding if a death was really murder or manslaughter (like when a guy runs over someone with his car). All mens rea issues can be tricky, but are essential to our criminal law system.

But why introduce more such tricky questions? Especially when youre likely going to force juries to make judgements about such sensitive questions of religion and group affiliation. I fear that the kind of definition you and Gepap seem to be arguing for would result in juries having to distinguish whether wearing gang colors is more or less a social agenda than women covering their faces in certain ways. Which would lead them to examining and judging the customs and texts of certain religions. Which is NOT a way I think we want them to go. Better to have a wider definition - if some drug gangs get caught up in the net, thats a small price to pay.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But why introduce more such tricky questions?

Why not? We already ask the jury to decide the motivations of criminals. I don't see how this would be different.

Better to have a wider definition - if some drug gangs get caught up in the net, thats a small price to pay.

I totally disagree. I want 'terrorism laws' which were passed after the panic of 9/11 to be as narrowly construed as possible.

Though, if you do oppose hate crimes because people are deciding motivation, you should oppose terrorism acts, because even in a wider definition, people have to decide the motivation of the person. Is it to advance the agenda of the group or just personal gain?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But why introduce more such tricky questions?

Why not? We already ask the jury to decide the motivations of criminals. I don't see how this would be different.

Better to have a wider definition - if some drug gangs get caught up in the net, thats a small price to pay.

I totally disagree. I want 'terrorism laws' which were passed after the panic of 9/11 to be as narrowly construed as possible.

Though, if you do oppose hate crimes because people are deciding motivation, you should oppose terrorism acts, because even in a wider definition, people have to decide the motivation of the person. Is it to advance the agenda of the group or just personal gain?

I would think you could define a terrorist act by the definition of the act and the impact on victims. If you blow up 50 people on a bus, that would tend to promote terror, in a way that a targeted crime does not. The defense would have to PROVE that the victims knew they could be individually saved by say, paying protection. Similarly I think hate crimes could be so defined. Painting "death to blacks" on a bridge could be distinguished from painting "charlie and mary 4ever" on a bridge without examining the painters motives. As for murder, Im not sure that a special hate crimes designation there is really required.

[Ming]

While I don't really give a damn what laws they use to attack gangs... this one is stretching it. If the feds or local governments want to go after gangs, use the existing laws that ACTUALLY APPLY, or create some more targeted laws instead of pulling this kind of crap.

[Mr. Harley]

I actually support this - the use of terror and violence is abhorrent and makes life horrendous for people in the area. The threats often target children, and the gangs often act in a paramilitary fashion. I don't believe the law was intended that way, but I applaud the application. Terror is terror, whether applied by a man in a turban from far away, or closer to home by a group of thugs who shoot a ten year old.

I have trouble with "intent" laws, at least until we have relible, court administered truth detection methods. Why did they engage in the violence. Coecive acts to force the actions of someone who was not directly the victim, i.e. the parent or people on the block of the murdered ten year old. Oops, that was an accident. Tough.

Anyone willing to engage in that kind of brutal victimization needs to be locked up permenently, because there is too much of a chance they will repeat that kind of offense. They are feral, and need to be removed from society for the safety of society. Also note plea agreements. While I loathe them, that is how US justice currently works.

The driver will probably get a offered an agreement removing the life in prison charges that will get the gunman locked away forever. It works for my stated goal, which is to protect society from violent individuals who have minimal hope of rehab. I would much more prefer my tax dollars going to lock up individuals like that then drug users whose primary crime is being addicted.

[Patroklos]

All of you *****ing about stretching a law are following the letter instead of the intent, I want to see your essay of strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I do care about what the law was written for, but I also care about what applies to it after the fact. Both should be covered, and both are.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos
All of you *****ing about stretching a law are following the letter instead of the intent, I want to see your essay of strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I do care about what the law was written for, but I also care about what applies to it after the fact. Both should be covered, and both are.

I'm not about to say "follow the letter of the law", but I oppose people using one law to try and bust somebody for something else. I want gangs to face tougher penalties and such. But they should be charged under GANG LAWS, not TERRORISM LAWS.

And I feel that way about the Constitution as well. Take the second amendment for instance. An amendment giving states the right to maintain armed militias isn't a green light for people to own assault weapons or weapons grade plutonium... for instance.

[Patroklos]

TAKE THAT BACK. I refuse to have the same opinion as you!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I would think you could define a terrorist act by the definition of the act and the impact on victims.

And what about the requisite mens rea? You have to have a guilty mind. If they aren't doing an act to promote terror for social or political gains, it doesn't fit.

All of you *****ing about stretching a law are following the letter instead of the intent, I want to see your essay of strict interpretation of the Constitution.

I'm a textualist, so .