Gang Member To Be Tried As Terrorist

[Nubclear]

Everyone the US doesn't like is a terrorist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Sorry, but that is NOT the issue. The question is why someone would blow up a bus filled with 50 people- you act as if someone who blew up a bus filled with 50 people would somehow be treated "better" than a terrorist- that act would count as 50 counts of first degree murder- in NY , that means a death sentence.

Intent matters, always has- why we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter. It matters if someone kills for money, or for social and political change, because that speaks directly to its social consequences- to how dangerous to the status quo it is- in the end, someone who blows up 50 people trying to get a payoff is in fact less socially dangerous than someone who blows up 50 people trying to overthrow the regime. That is why the system then punishes these acts differently.

The label terrorism loses all power if you make it so vague as to include acts that clearly have no socio-political motivations.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Remeber, crime and punishment is about the danger to society- what happened to the victim is an important but secondary concern, especially when the victim is dead and thus no longer around period.

[Odin]

Are DAs elected or appointed there? Elected DAs care more about looking tough on crime for the next election than good justice. To be terrorism the crime must have a social and/or politcal motive behind it. Gangs are just in it for $$$ and drugs.

BTW: the KKK would qualify as a terrorist organization, why don't we toss all the Klansmen into Gitmo?

[GePap]

In New York, Elected.

NYC has 5 DA's.

[Mr. Harley]

I would agree that the KKK in the past definitely was a terror organization, and that many of the member should have been incarcerated for life. My difinition of terror is different than yours. I shoot you because you informed on me. Murder. I shoot your child because you informed on me. Terror. Simple and straight foward.

[Whaleboy]

A violent drive-by shooting intended to create terror to a given end or cause.

I have problems with that, terrorism is not a consequence-based definition since if, say, 9/11 occurred as part of a strategic military campaign (we can use the Japanese Kamikaze attacks in WWII Pacific as a useful analogy) it would not be considered terrorism. To use an intent-based definition therefore, you have to establish the intent. Now, if you define terrorism as the intentional causation of terror to a certain end, you must surely differentiate between different ends, because there is a proportional difference in the scope, nature and severity of the crime, so it seems that for the purposes here, labelling something as "terrorism" becomes useless. I therefore submit that to use the term terrorism in a useful ways, means an exacting political change or a statement, or something that one cannot achieve militarily.

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

I would not categorise you as a terrorist. No more so than if you hijacked a lorry or a van. Popular culture, as well as a simple risk-analysis however, familially associates aircraft with terrorism, but look into that a little deeper and the association falls apart.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You're being pedantic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Remeber, crime and punishment is about the danger to society- what happened to the victim is an important but secondary concern, especially when the victim is dead and thus no longer around period.

I agree, thats the only reason to make a distinction for terrorism OR hate crime. I didnt mean to privilege the victims perception. I meant that if a defendent could prove that a victim could have avoided a crime by, say, paying protection money, that would be evidence that it was an "ordinary" crime and not a crime that tended to "terrorize" society in the way that both political crimes and certain gang related crimes are alleged to.

Maybe we dont need to distinguish these categories at ALL in this context - but if we do, I still think its better to do so in a way that minimizes the extent to which juries must judge the ideologies of the perpetrators.

[GePap]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
I would agree that the KKK in the past definitely was a terror organization, and that many of the member should have been incarcerated for life. My difinition of terror is different than yours. I shoot you because you informed on me. Murder. I shoot your child because you informed on me. Terror. Simple and straight foward.

actually, its:

1. 1st Degree murder
2. 1st Degree murder.

in NY, both are capital offenses.

[Dr Strangelove]

Gangs attempt to occupy territory and deny the occupants the protection they're entitled to by a duly elected government. In some instances they "tax" the people for protection. They definitely deny people their due right to testify in a court of law. If that's not a political agenda, then what is?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


actually, its:

1. 1st Degree murder
2. 1st Degree murder.

in NY, both are capital offenses.

what difference will it make if they continue prosecuting some gang members as terrorists so long as the courts and juries go along?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I agree, thats the only reason to make a distinction for terrorism OR hate crime. I didnt mean to privilege the victims perception. I meant that if a defendent could prove that a victim could have avoided a crime by, say, paying protection money, that would be evidence that it was an "ordinary" crime and not a crime that tended to "terrorize" society in the way that both political crimes and certain gang related crimes are alleged to.

So you blame for dying lies with the victims? The second you demand something on pain of death you have committed a crime- if you actually kill them, that is just a worse crime. Thats the difference- in your example, its either 1st degree murder (muder whil committing another felony, extorsion), or a terrorist act. Both would probalby lead to capital charges.

But the crime we are talking here is not 1st degree murder- which is obviously why the overzealous DA is trying to ship for a veredict by going nuts on the charges.

Maybe we dont need to distinguish these categories at ALL in this context - but if we do, I still think its better to do so in a way that minimizes the extent to which juries must judge the ideologies of the perpetrators.

It pretty easy to spot an act of terrorism-one of the points of terrorism is to advertise itself as a socio-political act. Not much thinking for a jury at all in a case of real terrorism.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Gangs attempt to occupy territory and deny the occupants the protection they're entitled to by a duly elected government. In some instances they "tax" the people for protection. They definitely deny people their due right to testify in a court of law. If that's not a political agenda, then what is?

amen!

Gangs dabble in political agendas all of the time. it's just that it's always the basest most obviously self serving sorts of political agendas. The primitive nature of their beliefs and values doesn't make them somehow less dangerous or onerous to society.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Gangs attempt to occupy territory and deny the occupants the protection they're entitled to by a duly elected government. In some instances they "tax" the people for protection. They definitely deny people their due right to testify in a court of law. If that's not a political agenda, then what is?

A political agenda means wanting political change- a new regime. Extorsion, which is what you are talking about, is not taxation (which is legal) and there are laws against it already. And witness tampering is already a crime as well- as for it being political- again, what does witness tampering have to do with which regime or political ideology is in power?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


what difference will it make if they continue prosecuting some gang members as terrorists so long as the courts and juries go along?

Because it subverts the meaning of the original terrorism statue, and also undermines the old statue, and does all this without the consent of the legislature, which makes the law.