Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lowering the Bar: Rehabilitation of Terrorist Offenders

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Law, Security and the State of Perpetual Emergency

  • 271 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines how counterterrorism laws and related sentencing practices in the United States impact opportunities for prisoners to rehabilitate and re-join society, and how they represent a normalized exception to detention standards. Rehabilitation is established as a critical component of international human rights law on the treatment of prisoners and is supported as the appropriate objective of penitentiary systems. A case study on the United States, however, illustrates not only popular and political ambivalence toward rehabilitation of terrorist offenders but also reveals that the sentencing regime and jurisprudence associated with counterterrorism cases in the United States have consistently inhibited opportunities for rehabilitation. The chapter concludes that if rehabilitation were conceptualized as a cornerstone of penal responses to those convicted of terrorist crimes, it would ultimately help advance the interrelated goals of security and human rights.

Georgia Papadopoulos Holmer is Senior Adviser on Anti-terrorism Issues at the OSCE Secretariat in Vienna Austria. The views expressed in this publication are hers do not necessarily reflect the official position of the OSCE or its participating States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, F. (1978). The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal in American Criminal Justice. Cleveland State Law Review, 27(2), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, F. (1981). The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley-Engen, M., Damphouse, K., & Smith, B. (2009). Punishing Terrorists: A Re-examination of US Federal Sentencing in the Post-guidelines Era. International Criminal Justice Review, 19(4), 433–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Border Protection and Anti-terrorism Act 2005 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. (1993). Cruelty, Hypocrisy, and the Rehabilitative Ideal in Corrections. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 16, 359–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesney, R. (2009). Optimizing Criminal Prosecution as a Counterterrorism Tool. In B. Wittes (Ed.), Legislating the War on Terror. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero. (1913). De Officiis (W. Miller, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comprehensive Crime Control Act 1984 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, T. (2016, November 16). Sentences in Minnesota Run from Time Served to 35 Years, NBC News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe, European Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (19 January 1973) Resolution 73 (5).

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe, European Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (12 February 1987) Rec R (87) 3 of the Committee Ministers to Member States.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. (2006). It’s Time to Reaffirm Rehabilitation. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(4), 665–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilulio, J. (1995, November 27). The Coming of the Superpredators. Weekly Standard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, C. (2016). Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. §2339A and §2339B. Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairfield, H., & Wallace, T. (2016, April 7). The Terrorists in US Prisons. New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holder v Humanitarian Law Project 561 US 1 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Homeland Security Act 2002 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, N. (2016, November 16). Federal Judge Grants Array of Sentences to Men Convicted of Supporting Islamic State. Wall Street Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, A. (2016). The Relevance of the Mandela Reform Rules in Europe. ERA Forum, 17, 299–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intelligence Reform Act 2004 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS 407 (ICCPR).

    Google Scholar 

  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).

    Google Scholar 

  • Koerner, B. (2017, February). Can You Turn a Terrorist Back into a Citizen. Wired.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrudden, C. (2008). Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 19(4), 655–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Military Commission Act 2006 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Omnibus Counterterrorism Act 1995 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (adopted 18 December 2002, entered into force 22 June 2006) 2375 UNTS 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, M. (2011). Rehabilitation in the Punitive Era: The Gap between Rhetoric and Reality in U.S. Prison Programs. Law & Society Review, 45(1), 3–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, J. (2015). Terrorist Suspect Religious Identity and Public Support for Harsh Interrogation and Detention Practices. Political Psychology, 36(6), 667–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (2004). The Laws (T. Saunders, Trans.). London: Penguin Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, D. E., & Flockton, J. (2012). Calibrating Risk for Violent Political Extremists and Terrorists: The VERA 2 Structured Assessment. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 14(2), 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Real ID Act 2006 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, S. (2007). Impotence of Being Earnest: Status of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 33, 61–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotman, E. (1986). Do Criminal Offenders Have a Constitutional Right to Rehabilitation? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77(4), 1023–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Said, W. E. (2014). Sentencing Terrorist Crimes. Ohio State Law Journal, 75, 477–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarre, R. (2001). Beyond ‘What Works?’ A 25-Year Jubilee Retrospective of Robert Martinson’s Famous Article. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 34, 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Reform Act 1984 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, C. P. (2012). Punishing Crimes of Terror in Article III Court. Yale Law & Policy Review, 31, 309–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuley, A. (2015–2016). Holder v Humanitarian Law Project: Redefining Free Speech Protection in the War on Terror. Indiana Law Review, 49, 579–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (adopted 31 July 1957 by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders) UN Doc A/CONF/611.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, UNGA Res 70/175 (17 December 2015) UN Doc A/RES/70/175 (“The Nelson Mandela Rules”).

    Google Scholar 

  • Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Disrupt Terrorism 2001 (US).

    Google Scholar 

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December1948 UNGA Res. 217 A (III)) (UDHR),

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Ali No. 13–2208 (8th Cir. MN) (25 August 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Booker 543 US 220 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Hammoud 381 F 3d 316 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Meirick 674 F 3d 802 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Meskini 319 F 3d 88 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Mohamed Abdihamid Farah et al. Complaint (8th Cir. MN) (18 April 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • US v Warsame Crim No. 16–37 Court Order (8th Cir. MN) (2 March 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994 (US).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. OSCE Secretariat, Vienna, Austria

    Georgia Papadopoulos Holmer

Authors
  1. Georgia Papadopoulos Holmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Linda S. Bishai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Holmer, G.P. (2020). Lowering the Bar: Rehabilitation of Terrorist Offenders. In: Bishai, L. (eds) Law, Security and the State of Perpetual Emergency . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44959-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation