Criminal Law and Philosophy

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 99–121 | Cite as

Terrorizing Criminal Law

Original Paper

Abstract

The essays in Waldron’s Torture, Terror, and Trade-Offs have important implications for debates about the criminalization of terrorism and terrorism-related offences and its consequences for criminal law and criminal justice. His reflections on security speak directly to contemporary debates about the preventive role of the criminal law. And his analysis of inter-personal security trade-offs invites much closer attention to the costs of counter-terrorism policies, particularly those pursued outside the criminal process. But is Waldron right to speak of a ‘welcome the return to the criminal justice model’? This article considers the arguments in favour of prioritizing the prosecution of terrorist suspects and asks if their prosecution can safely proceed without undue hazard to the criminal law and criminal process.

Keywords

Criminal law Terrorism Counter-terrorism Security Civil liberties Criminal process 

References

  1. Ashworth, A. (2006). Four threats to the presumption of innocence. South African Law Journal, 123, 62–96.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A. (2009). Criminal law, human rights and preventative justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronitt (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law (pp. 87–198). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Ashworth, A. (2011). The unfairness of risk-based possession offences. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 5(3), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashworth, A., & Blake, M. (1996). The presumption of innocence in English criminal law Criminal Law Review, 306–317.Google Scholar
  5. Ashworth, A., & Redmayne, M. (2010). The criminal process (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2010). Preventive orders: A problem of under-criminalization? In R. A. Duff, L. Farmer, S. Marshall, M. Renzo, & V. Tadros (Eds.), The boundaries of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2011). Just prevention and the limits of the criminal law. In R. A. Duff & S. P. Green (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2012). Prevention and criminalization: Justifications and limits. New Criminal Law Review, 15(4), forthcoming.Google Scholar
  9. Bonner, D. (2006). Checking the executive? Detention without trial, control orders, due process and human rights. European Public Law, 12(1), 45–71.Google Scholar
  10. Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. British Journal of Sociology, 56(2), 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole, D. (2003). Enemy Aliens: Double standards and constitutional freedoms in the war on terrorism. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dennis, I., & Sullivan, G. R. (Eds.). (2012). Seeking security: Pre-empting the commission of criminal harms. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Dubber, M. D. (2005). The police power: Patriarchy and the foundations of American Government. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dworkin, R. (2002). The threat to patriotism. The New York Review of Books, 49(3). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/nov/06/terror-the-attack-on-civil-liberties/. Accessed 12 June 2012.
  15. Dworkin, R. (2003). Terror and the attack on civil liberties. The New York Review of Books, 50(17). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/feb/28/the-threat-to-patriotism/. Accessed 12 June 2012.
  16. Dyzenhaus, D. (2001). The permanence of the temporary: Can emergency powers be normalized? In R. Daniels, P. Macklem, & K. Roach (Eds.), The security of freedom: Essays on Canada’s anti-terrorism bill (pp. 21–37). Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Farmer, L. (2006). The jurisprudence of security: The police power and the criminal law. In M. D. Dubber & M. Valverde (Eds.), The new police science: The police power in domestic and international perspective. Stanford Ca: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Feldman, N. (2002). Choices of law, choices of war. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 25(2), 457–485.Google Scholar
  19. Fenwick, H. (2002). The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A proportionate response to 11 September? The Modern Law Review, 65(5), 724–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finkelstein, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Should Bush Administration lawyers be prosecuted for authorizing torture? University of Pennsylvania Law Review (PENNumbra), Vol. 158, p. 195. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1628304.
  21. Gardner, J. (2006). What security is there against arbitrary government? The London Review of Books, 28(5), 1–9.Google Scholar
  22. Goldsmith, A. (2007). Preparation for terrorism: Catastrophic risk and precautionary criminal law. In A. Lynch, E. Macdonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror (pp. 59–74). Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hillyard, P. (1994). The normalization of special powers from Northern Ireland to Britain. In N. Lacey (Ed.), A reader on criminal justice (pp. 63–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Horder, J. (2012). Harmless wrongdoing and the anticipatory perspective on criminalisation. In I. Dennis & G. R. Sullivan (Eds.), Seeking security: Pre-empting the commission of criminal harms. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Husak, D. (2008). Overcriminalization: The limits of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ignatieff, M. (2004). The Lesser Evil: Political ethics in an age of terror. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kavanagh, A. (2010). Special advocates, control orders and the right to a fair trial. Modern Law Review, 63(5), 836–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loader, I., & Sparks, R. (2010). Public criminology? Criminological politics in the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Lynch, A., & Reilly, A. (2007). The constitutional validity of terrorism orders of control and preventative detention. Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 10, 105–142.Google Scholar
  30. Macdonald, S. (2007). ASBOs and control orders: two recurring themes, two apparent contradictions. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 601–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Macdonald, K. (2011). Review of counter-terrorism and security powers cm 8003. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  32. Melia, M. C. (2011). Terrorism and criminal law: The dream of prevention, the nightmare of the rule of law. New Criminal Law Review, 14(1), 108–122.Google Scholar
  33. Roach, K. (2007). The case for defining terrorism with restraint. In A. Lynch, E. Macdonald, & G. Williams (Eds.), Law and liberty in the war on terror (pp. 39–48). Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
  34. Roach, K. (2011). The 9/11 effect: Comparative counter-terrorism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneier, B. (2006). Beyond fear: Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Simester, A., & von Hirsch, A. (2009). Remote harms and non-constitutive crimes. Criminal Justice Ethics, 28(1), 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Simester, A., & von Hirsch, A. (2011). Crimes, harms and wrongs: On the principles of criminalization. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Stuntz, W. (2002). Local policing after the terror. Yale Law Journal, 111(8), 2137–2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tadros, V. (2008). Crimes and security. Modern Law Review, 71(6), 940–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tadros, V., & Hodgson, J. (2009). How to make a terrorist out of nothing. Modern Law Review, 72(6), 984–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tadros, V., & Tierney, S. (2004). The presumption of innocence and the Human Rights Act. Modern Law Review, 67, 402–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tomkins, A. (2011). National security and the due process of law. Current Legal Problems, 64(1), 215–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Waldron, J. (2010). Torture, terror and trade-offs: Philosophy for the White House. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Walen, A. (2011). Criminalizing statements of terrorist intent: How to understand the law governing terrorist threats, and why it should be used instead of long-term preventive detention. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(3), 803–853.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, C. (2007). Keeping control of terrorists without losing control of constitutionalism. Stanford Law Review, 59(5), 1395–1464.Google Scholar
  46. Walker, C. (2009a). Blackstone’s guide to the anti-terrorism legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Walker, C. (2009b). Prosecuting terrorism: The Old Bailey versus Belmarsh. Amicus Curiae, 79, 21–25.Google Scholar
  48. Zedner, L. (2003). The concept of security: An agenda for comparative analysis. Legal Studies, 23(1), 153–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zedner, L. (2005). Securing liberty in the face of terror: Reflections from criminal justice. Journal of Law and Society, 32(4), 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zedner, L. (2007a). Preventive justice or pre-punishment? The case of control orders. Current Legal Problems, 59, 174–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zedner, L. (2007b). Seeking security by eroding rights: The side-stepping of due process. In B. Goold & L. Lazarus (Eds.), Security and human rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Zedner, L. (2008). Terrorism, the ticking bomb, and criminal justice values. Criminal justice Matters, 73, 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zedner, L. (2009). Fixing the future? The pre-emptive turn in criminal justice. In B. McSherry, A. Norrie, & S. Bronnit (Eds.), Regulating deviance: The redirection of criminalisation and the futures of criminal law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Zedner, L. (2011). Terrorism and counter terrorism: What is at risk? In L. Skinns, M. Scott, & T. Cox (Eds.), Risk (pp. 109–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.UNSWSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations