Criminological Theories of Terrorism

Criminological Theories of TerrorismORIGINTerrorism has occurred through prohibited history for a variety of reasons. Its causes good deal be historical, heathen, political, social, psychological, sparing, or spectral-or any(prenominal) junto of these. Some countries redeem proven to be sort outicularly susceptible to act of terrorism at certain times, as Italy and West Germany were during the 1970s. Terrorist violence escalated precipitously in those two countries for a decade in advance declining equally dramati mobilizey. Other countries, such(prenominal) as Canada and The Netherlands, entertain proven to be much than resistant, and have chthonicgo plainly a few isolated terrorist incidents.In general, democratic countries have plyd more fertile ground for terrorism because of the open nature of their societies. In such societies citizens have funda affable practiceds, civil liberties be legally protected, and political science control and constant surveillan ce of its citizens and their activities is absent. By the same token, repressive societies, in which the governance closely monitors citizens and restricts their speech and movement, have a lot provided more arduous environments for terrorists. But even police states have not been immune to terrorism, condescension limiting civil liberties and forbidding free speech and rights of assembly. Examples intromit Russia under tsarist radiation diagram and the Communist-ruled Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as tumesce as the Peoples Republic of China, Myanmar, and Laos. In broad terminals the causes that have usually compelled volume to secure in terrorism argon grievances borne of political oppression, cultural domination, economic exploitation, ethnic discrimination, and religious persecution. Perceived inequities in the distribution of riches and political power have led some terrorists to attempt to revoke democratically elected governments. To achieve a fairer socie ty, they would replace these governments with socialist or communist regimes. Left-wing terrorist conclaves of the 1960s and 1970s with such aims included Germanys Baader-Meinhof Gang, Italys trigger-happy Brigades, and the Weather Underground in the United States. Other terrorists have want to fulfill some mission that they believe to be divinely invigorate or millennialist (related to the end of the world). The Japanese religious cult Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo sub trend in 1995 that killed 12 people, falls into this category. Still other terrorists have embraced comparatively more define and comprehensible goals such as the re-establishment of a national country of origin (for example, Basque separatists in Spain) or the unification of a divided nation (Irish chauvinistics in Northern Ireland). Finally, some terrorists are motivated by very proper(postnominal) issues, such as opposition to legalized stillbirth or nuclear energy, or the championing of environmental concerns and tool rights. They apprehend to pressure both the public and its representatives in government to enact legislation directly reflecting their particular concern. Militant animal rights activists, for example, have used violence a impinge onst scientists and laboratory technicians in their campaign to hindrance medical experimentation involving animals. Radical environmentalists have sabotaged logging operations and the mannikinulation of power grids to protest the spoiling of natural wilderness areas. Extremists who oppose legalized abortion in the United States have attacked clinics and murdered doctors and other employees in hopes of denying women the right to abortion. 2More than 2, 000 years ago the first cognise acts of what we now call terrorism were perpetrated by a radical offshoot of the partizans, a Jewish sect active in Judea during the 1st century ad. The Zealots resisted the Roman Empires rule of what is today Israel thr ough a determined campaign mainly involving assassination. Zealot fighters used the sica, a primitive dagger, to attack their enemies in broad daylight, practically in crowded market places or on feast days-essentially wherever there were people to witness the violence. Thus, like modern terrorists, the Zealots intended their actions to top a message to a wider target audience in this instance, the Roman occupation forces and any Jews who sympathized or collaborated with the invaders. Between 1090 and 1272 an Islamic movement grapplen as the Assassins used similar tactics in their struggle against the Christian Crusaders who had invaded what is today part of Syria. The Assassins embraced the same notions of self-sacrifice and suicidal martyrdom obvious in some Islamic terrorist groups today. They regarded violence as a sacramental or divine act that ensured its perpetrators would ascend to a glorious enlightenment should they perish during the task. 3THEORIES OF terrorist act THE POLITICAL possibleness OF ANARCHISM AS A system OF TERRORISMTerrorism is approximately definitely not a orchestrate of governance, but anarchism is. close anarchists reject terrorism in its vanguard varieties (for nationalist or religious purposes), but in a theoretical find, anarchism justifies terrorism as a form of felon action that attacks the values of an organized, content society. Anarchism is a possibility of governance that rejects any form of central or external authority, preferring instead to replace it with alternative forms of organization such as shaming rituals for deviants, mutual assistance pacts amidst citizens, syndicalism (any non-authoritarian organizational structure that gives the greatest liberty to earners), iconoclasm (the destruction of cherished beliefs), libertarianism (a belief in absolute liberty), and plain octogenarian rugged individualism. Anarchism is often referred to as the nineteenth century roots of terrorism, the term first be ing introduced in 1840 by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Anarchism definedis the rejection of the state, of any form of absolute government, of any form of domination and exploitation. It is the notion of free and equal door to all the worlds resources to enable positive freedom (freedom to) in place of prejudicial freedom (freedom from, or the basis of most constitutional rights).THE POLITICAL conjecture OF FASCISM AS A conjecture OF TERRORISMFascism is the one form of government with the most disagreement to the highest degree a definition for it. The word comes from the Latin fasces which means to use power to scare or impress people. It by and large refers to the consolidation of all economic and political power into some form of super-patriotism that is devoted to genocide or endless war with ones enemies. Benito Mussolini, who practically invented the term in 1922, said it is the merger of state and corporate power. Mussolinis version of fascism was establish on the idea of an indomitable power and an attempt to resurrect empurpled Rome. Adolf Hitler said fascism is the clever and constant application of propaganda so that people brook be made to see paradise as hell, and the other way around. Hitlers brand of fascism drew upon philosophical reflections by Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, and also drew upon Nordic folk romance from Wagner to Tacitus. Japanese fascism involved racism, fanaticism, historical destiny, and a pastiche of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends.THE PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY OF organized righteousness AS A THEORY OF TERRORISMMore than one criminologist has pointed out that the disciplines of theology, religion, and philosophy have had important subjects to say astir(predicate) terrorism (Stitt 2003 Kraemer 2004). It is also a fact that about a quarter of all terrorist groups and about half of the most dangerous ones on earth are primarily motivated by religious concerns (Hoffman 1993). They b elieve that God not only approves of their action, but that God demands their action. Their cause is sacred, and consists of a combined sense of hope for the future and vengeance for the past. Of these two components, the backward-looking desire for vengeance may be the more important trigger for terrorism because the forward-looking component (calledapocalyptic thinking, or eschatology) produces wild-eyed fanatics who are more a danger to themselves and their own people. The artifice to successful use of terrorism in the name of religion rests upon win over believers or convertees that aneglected dutyexists in the fundamental, mainstream part of the religion. Religious terrorism is therefore, NOT about extremism, fanaticism, sects, or cults, but is instead all about a fundamentalist or militant interpretation of the basic tenets. Evil is often defined as malignant narcissism from a theological point of view, and religion easily serves as moral cover for self-centred terrorists an d psychopaths (Stitt 2003). Religion has continuously absorbed or absolved evil and guilt in what is called theodicy, or the study of how the existence of evil can be reconciled with a good and benevolent God. Most religions theodicize evil away as all (1) a test of faith (2) a product of free leave alone (3) part of Gods plan or (4) functional to let people let out right from wrong and terrorists easily make use of these established theodicy or critiques of them (Kraemer 2004).THE ECONOMICS THEORY OF RATIONAL CHOICE AS A THEORY OF TERRORISMThe discipline of economics has many concepts that are relevant to an correspondence of terrorism supply and demand costs and benefits, etc. Fully-developed economic or econometric models of terrorism are quite rare, however, and often involve such things as psychic costs and benefits (Nyatepe-Coo 2004). More down-to-earth economic theories can be found in the literature ondeterrence. Rational choice theory, in particular, has found a plac e in criminology, and holds that people will engage in offensive after weighing the costs and benefits of their actions to arrive at a rational choice about motivation after perceiving that the chances of gain outweigh any possible punishment or loss.THE GLOBALIZATION THEORY OF TERRORISMNassar (2004) has probably written the most interesting piece on globalization theory as it relates to terrorism, and although his ideas are fairly critical of the U. S. for exportation nightmares as well as dreams, he does provide a strapping introduction to the complex topic of globalization. Globalization contributes to dreams, fantasies, and rising expectations, but at the same time, it leads to dashed hopes, broken dreams, and unfulfilled achievements. Terrorism breeds in the disturbance between expectations and achievements. The thinking is very similar to strain theory in criminology or the rising expectations theory of prison riots, and about the only thing unique about globalization theor y is that it adds a rich- unretentive dichotomy. Rich people (or nations) are seen as wanting power and wealth, and poor people (or nations) are seen as wanting justice. From this perspective, then, rich people are part of the causal factor or root cause of terrorism, since they contribute to the conditions which give repeal to it. Perpetrators of terrorism (always treated as an ill-defined concept in globalization theory) are never seen as born or raised with any specific predispositions toward it. In brief, globalization theory holds that if the oppressed and disgruntled poor people of the world were simply given the chance to find peaceable means for achieving justice, terrorism would not thrive.SOCIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF TERRORISM upstart sociological perspectives are primarily concerned with the social construction of fright or panic, and how institutions and processes, especially the media, primary and secondary groups, maintain that expression of fear. Labe ling theory in criminology, for example, is a social constructionist viewpoint that, in my opinion, goes about reconnecting consequences with causes in a way that is less systematic than the way functionalists did it a dour time ago. Some societies become softer targets after terrorism (especially after short-term target hardening), and other societies become stronger in the long term. It depends upon interaction patterns, and stabilities and interpenetrations among the structural subsystems (economy, polity, religion, legal philosophy).PSYCHIATRIC THEORIES OF MENTAL ILLNESS AS A THEORY OF TERRORISMThe leading exponent of the terrorist-as-mentally-ill approach is Jerrold Post (1984 1990), who has gone on evidence saying that the most dangerous terrorist is apparent to be a religious terrorist, and that all terrorists suffer from negative childhood experiences and a damaged sense of self. His analysis of the terrorist mindset (a word that substitutes for terrorist personality, a nd technically means a set mental attitude or inclination) draws upon a view of mental unwellness that compels, or forces, people to commit horrible acts. It should be noted that we know from criminal justice that this is not the only possible view on mental illness. More crazy people come into contact with the law through sheer folly and foolishness than a compulsion their mental illness made them have. Post (1990) makes a somewhat neo-Freudian distinction between terrorists who desire to destroy the nation, or world, of their fathers and those who desire to carry on the mission, or world, of their fathers. BIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF TERRORISMDavid Hubbard (1983) was one of the first biological researchers of terrorism, and his line of work is similar to the familiar cycle of violence hypothesis in criminal justice. In this view, people who commit repetitive and cyclical acts of violence (which would include wife beaters, rapists, and serial killers) are driven by hormonal or neurochem ical fluctuations in their body or brain chemistry. Three compounds, in particular, have been singled out as having abnormal levels among terrorists norepinephrine, acetylcholine, and endorphins. Of these, norepinephrineis suspected as being the most influential, as it is associated with the so-calledflight or fight mechanismin human biology. The theory of fight or flight was developed by W. B. Cannon back in 1929, and refers to a state of arousal under stress in which the heart, lungs, and muscle hunt more efficiently. As it applies to terrorism (and crime), the behavioral requirements of such activities (fighting exhilaration before an event, and fleeing manipulation of audience after an event) produce a syndrome of physiological fate for arousal at fairly regular intervals. Motives for terrorism appear to be quite stable when the biological viewpoint is taken, and it is possible to link a variety of aspects in the normal terrorist profile with biological factors.TRADITIONAL cr iminological THEORIES APPLIED TO TERRORISMIts not easy applying traditional criminological theories to terrorism. Most of these theories were designed to explain ordinary street crime like looting or burglary, and have a certain hardiness to their perspectives which makes them difficult to extend. Ruggiero (2005) is typical of those who have attempted to apply such theories or suggest various(a) extensions, starting with Durkheims functionalism by asking whether Durkheim would see terrorism as part of the normality of crime or as part of a understandably unacceptable, dysfunctional form of crime. On the one hand, Durkheim said that all crime serves positive functions (of innovation and evolution), but on the other hand, the organic fiction that Durkheim used seems to suggest that some forms of crime only cause putrefaction and are cancerous. The Chicago school of disorganization in criminology would presumably concenter on the distinctiveness of different social worlds between t errorists and non-terrorists, analyzing the communication blockages, for example. soma theorists would likely argue that terrorism is inevitable as a materialization of the broken promise that everybody can rise from rags to riches, and study the adaptation Merton set forth as rebellion. Learning theorists would likely emphasize the importance of role models or the techniques of neutralization involved along with the drift into a terrorist lifestyle. Labeling theorists would probably say, cynically but truly, that terrorism is what the other person does. Control theorists would likely centralise on terrorists being unattached, unloved, uncommitted to education or business, uninvolved in conventional tasks, and having their hands idle so time becomes the devils playground for them. dispute theorists would probably focus on the presence or absence of associations that provide room for collective action and permanent confrontation, although more radical versions of remainder the ory might glamorize terrorism as proto-revolutionary action. Integrated theories would likely focus on the influences of aggressive proneness, provocation, and the put forward of third parties.THEORIES UNIQUE TO house servant TERRORISMFreilich (2003) does a good job of reviewing the theories in this category, a relatively small area of research which tends to be studied within a field called the sociology of social movements. There are three groups of theories. The first is called economic/social integration theory, and it holds that high concentrations of farming, economic depression, and social disorganization are all related to high levels of interior(prenominal) terrorist activity, militia movements in particular. In some varieties, it tends to be a kind of farm crisis or agrarian reform theory frequently used by those who study the Latin American context. The second theory is called resource mobilisation theory, and it suggests that states which are more prosperous and soci ally integrated would tend to develop more domestic terrorist activity, on the basis that group competition for power and resources becomes intense. The third group of theories are called cultural theories, and propose that states experiencing great cultural diversity and womanly empowerment along with increasing paramilitarism are likely to develop greater levels of domestic terrorist activity. In terms of research findings, more empirical support seems to exist for the third set of theories (at least according to Freilich 2003), although resource mobilization theory tends to dominate the theoretical literature. Also in general, there is more empirical support for the idea that domestic terrorism more often plagues richer and affluent nations than poor ones. 4