« The map is wrong | Main | Quick response to Brad Setser »
Defining Terrorism Down
Would you believe that the median sentence length given to a terrorist has fallen since 9/11? In fact, it's fallen by a lot, from 41 months of prison time to just 20 days of prison time. Have we gotten soft on terrorism? Of course not. In my judgment, sentence length has fallen because in an effort to increase the terrorism stats and scare us all into compliance the FBI and other government agencies have defined terrorism down. The situation has gotten so absurd that in recent years Federal prosecutors have declined to prosecute approximately 90% of the international terrorism cases brought to them by the investigative agencies.
Read the whole report here.
I am at least heartened by the fact that our decentralized system of justice means that prosecutors need not feel that they must march in lockstep with the agencies and the administration. This is another reason to oppose abandoning the traditional American system of justice for "military tribunals" and other dependent courts not subject to checks, balances and review.
Hat tip to Boing Boing Blog.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on September 7, 2006 at 12:51 PM in Current Affairs, Data Source, Law | Permalink
Comments
Thank you, Alex. It makes me so happy to see a blogger with a libertarian bent actually OPPOSE tossing away long-standing civil liberties/defendants' protections in the name of the almighty Global War On Terror. Sadly, many of your fellow libertarian bloggers fail to see this. OK i will call them out specifically- Instapundit and certain members of the Volokh Conspiracy.
Just as in its interference with the marketplace, the State often acts wrongly or recklessly, and it is best kept in check with countervailing forces and by shining a light on its actions, not by giving it unquestioned power and shrouding its processes in secret.
Posted by: Dan at Sep 7, 2006 3:13:56 PM
Prof. AT,
Terrorism as a term has been grossly overused. I agree that is has been used as a scare tactic. The government has used the term to refer to virtually any and all political and military activity arising out of the Middle East (or the Islamic world in general) that is not to its liking.
Sadly, the average man/woman in the U.S. will become accustomed to associating terror with Islam and the Middle East region. This is not prudent long-term policy.
Terrorism, practiced by state or non-state actors will not be eradicated; it has existed throughout human history. Yet it is a convenient category to place the numerous vague and poorly devised adventures that Washington is embarking on.
Is it flirting with paranoia to consider whether the toothpaste and liquid rule on flights is a convenient next episode to the TSA rituals at the nation’s airports? Even if the plot was substantial, will the reaction by authorities in confiscating lipstick and ginger ale reduce the risk enough to make the policy worthwhile? Perhaps death in the air by faulty wiring on overused jets poses a higher risk than by terror but touting that has no political effect for the administration.
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Sep 7, 2006 3:44:15 PM
> Would you believe that the median sentence length given to a terrorist has fallen since 9/11?
Curiously, when I started reading this I thought it was referring to the word-length of sentences journalists used in describing terrorists... ;)
Posted by: Neil H. at Sep 7, 2006 3:46:06 PM
Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason and James Madision being alive today and listening to the rhetoric coming out of the government today? Their response would highly likely get them arrested. Franklin said it best (and forgive me if I get it a little bit wrong), those would give up their liberty for a little security, deserve neither.
Posted by: Murphy at Sep 7, 2006 3:47:57 PM
Mao: Can you give us any concrete examples of "terrorism" being so-misused?
And, Murphy, the quote is "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety...", which is, well, significantly more nuanced, isn't it?
(What essential liberty is this being given up? And weren't un-uniformed combatants subject to summary execution in wars in Franklin's day?)
Back to the report, it says Given the widely accepted belief that the threat of terrorism in all parts of the world is much larger today than it was six or seven years ago, the extent of the recent decline in prosecutions is unexpected. ... haven't they ever heard of low-hanging fruit? The "threat" of terrorism is not directly related to the ability to arrest terrorists. The people easiest to find and prosecute were the first ones found and prosecuted.
(Next they'll be shocked that prison populations and crime rates are often inversely related!)
The cases declined are not necessarily "international terrorism" cases, but cases, it says, involving people identified as being "international terrorists". If someone so-identified is referred under any charge, taht'd be counted for that study - and if the charge was silly (or significant and lacking convictable evidence), it'd be not prosecuted.
I imagine some prosecutions and arrests were done knowing that a conviction would not be obtained, simply to get leverage or information or to get someone out of the loop, so to speak... and I don't see that, inherently, as a problem.
I do expect more critical thinking on statistical and criminal justice claims here, though. Even when such thinking might dull an anti-Administration point.
(It's also interesting to look at the specific types of charges data. The second largest group is a catch-all "Anti-Terrorism All Others". More of those have been prosecuted than just let go, and the conviction to non-conviction rate for prosecutions is approximately 2:1. That doesn't seem all that bad to me.)
Posted by: Sigivald at Sep 7, 2006 4:12:08 PM
But more importantly, we shouldn't confuse "Terrorist" and "anyone prosecuted under an anti-terrorist heading".
Someone prosecuted for giving money to Hamas is not "a terrorist", even if the charge is "terrorist financing". "Terrorism-related", yes.
But a first sentence that talks about the length of sentence for "terrorists"?
Is there any reason this post isn't just a sloppy attempt to "scare" us into believing that "they" are trying to "scare" us? (If so, what's the difference?)
How, pray tell, could any of this prosecution be done without it being presented as a mere scare-tactic? Never mention "terrorism"? Have no "terrorism-related" categories that aren't actually-getting-on-a-plane-with-a-bomb? Constructive suggestions in that regard are welcome, if y'all have any.
(Honestly, if this is what passes for scare-mongering, they could do a lot better.)
Posted by: Sigivald at Sep 7, 2006 4:22:19 PM
My observation is that the more frighten a jurer is of the crime the defendent is accused of, the more likly they are to convict. It seem likly the closer we were fron 9/11 the easier it was to get a conviction. Prosecutors know this, so are now less likly to bring a case to trial.
Posted by: joan at Sep 7, 2006 5:44:36 PM
Even if terrorism were not "defined down," we should expect increasing expenditures on anti-terrorism to lead to diminishing returns. First dollars are (we hope) spent catching and punishing the worst offenders. Additional dollars are spent catching those who have committed more minor offenses with smaller punishments. So other things equal, we should expect diminishing marginal punishments as the number of prosecutions increases, and thus a falling average punishment as well.
Posted by: Glen at Sep 7, 2006 5:57:30 PM
Sigivald,
My post stated that ‘terrorism’ is overused rather than ‘misused’ as you mention in your query?
In any case, terrorism can be defined as broadly as you would like it to be. Therefore ‘concrete’ examples are only as concrete as your personal political philosophy and viewpoints.
Be it ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorism-related’; the term/phrase is currently being defined too broadly – it has turned into a miscellaneous category and many pressing questions/concerns regarding U.S. policy in general (including civil liberties issues) and more specifically policy toward the Middle East/Islamic world are placed in the greater ‘war on terror’ box.
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Sep 7, 2006 7:12:16 PM
I also think the term terrorist is widely over used. I would think that the median sentence time for a real terrorist would increase not decrease. The president has recieved too much disapproval from the public for his strong miltary actions already; so he would not be letting real terrorism go unjustified. I do think though the less substanical terrorist times have decreased so the public will be scared of the alarming amount of terrorist we are locking up and feel more obligated in helping the government and police forces find terrorism.
Posted by: Brandon at Sep 11, 2006 11:50:15 AM
I also think the term terrorist is widely over used. I would think that the median sentence time for a real terrorist would increase not decrease. The president has recieved too much disapproval from the public for his strong miltary actions already; so he would not be letting real terrorism go unjustified. I do think though the less substanical terrorist times have decreased so the public will be scared of the alarming amount of terrorist we are locking up and feel more obligated in helping the government and police forces find terrorism.
Posted by: Brandon at Sep 11, 2006 11:52:14 AM
One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.
Posted by: Enlightenment at Nov 1, 2006 7:47:02 PM
Dofus kamas
buy dofus kamas
cheap kamas
dofus kama
dofus gold
dofus money
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 20, 2009 3:32:25 AM
