Advertisement

How 9/11 Changed the Prosecution of Terrorism

  • Christopher A. Shields
  • Kelly R. Damphousse
  • Brent L. Smith
Part of the The Day that Changed Everything? book series (911)

Abstract

September 11 impacted U.S. counterterrorism policy in several key areas, and through the end of 2008 it continues to do so. Policy changes implemented after the attack had a dramatic impact on how the federal government investigates and prosecutes those suspected of engaging in terrorism. Perhaps the most profound policy change occurred when the United States redirected its domestic antiterrorism policy from its earlier focus of infiltrating and beheading terrorist organizations to the more proactive goals of intercepting and disrupting terrorist groups before their members could successfully launch attacks. That change resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of cases the government prosecuted after 9/11. The shift also changed the types of cases the government prosecuted and, ostensibly, its success in gaining convictions.

Keywords

Terrorist Group Defense Strategy Attorney General Conviction Rate Diffusion Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Portions of this research were funded by the National Institute of Justice (Grant Number 1999-IICX-0005 and Grant Number 2006-IC-IX-0026) and the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (Grant Number MIPT 106–113–2000–064) through the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security The opinions presented here do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the MIPT, or the NIJ.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. L. Ingraham and Kazuhiko Tokoro, “Political Crime in the United States and Japan: A Comparative Study,” Issues in Criminology 4, no. 2 (1969): 145–170Google Scholar
  3. Brent Smith and Kelly Damphousse, “Terrorism, Politics, and Punishment: A Test of Structural-Contextual Theory and the’ Liberation Hypothesis,”’ Criminology 36, no. 1 (1998): 67–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brent Smith, Kelly Damphousse, Freedom Jackson, and Amy Sellers, “The Prosecution and Punishment of International Terrorists in Federal Courts: 1980–1998,” Criminology & Public Policy 1 no. 3 (2002): 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    See Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman, Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature (Amsterdam, North Holland: Transaction Books, 1988)Google Scholar
  6. 13.
    John T. Elliff, The Reform of FBI Intelligence Operations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    Tony Poveda, Lawlessness and Reform: The FBI in Transition (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1990).Google Scholar
  8. 17.
    Brent L. Smith, Terrorism in America: Pipe Bombs and Pipe Dreams (New York: State University of New York Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  9. 31.
    See, e.g., Joseph Carlson, “The Future Terrorists in America,” American Journal of Police 14 (1995): 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 36.
    Brent Smith, Kelly Damphousse, Freedom Tackson, and Amy Sellers, “The Prosecution and Punishment of International Terrorists in Federal Courts: 1980–1998,” Criminology&Public Policy 1, no. 3 (2002: 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 37.
    Austin Turk, Political Criminality (Beverley Hills, CA: Sage, 1982).Google Scholar
  12. 39.
    Kelly Damphousse and Chris Shields, “The Morning After: Assessing the Effect of Major Terrorism Events on Prosecution Strategies and Outcomes,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23, no. 2 (2007): 174–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Matthew J. Morgan 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. Shields
    • 1
  • Kelly R. Damphousse
    • 2
  • Brent L. Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Terrorism Research CenterUniversity of ArkansasUSA
  2. 2.College of Arts and SciencesUniversity of OklahomaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Terrorism Research Center in Fulbright CollegeUniversity of ArkansasUSA

Personalised recommendations