This is what is known as “Mission Creep”

Gang Member is Convicted under Terror Law (NYT).

The conviction seems to be based on the jurors term confusion, inflicted by the judge.  The judge told the jurors  that terrorism  was an act intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population[.]”

The problem with that is that the definition may be sufficient as to what “terror” is, but is incomplete regarding what “terrorism” is.  Terrorism, as an act, is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population in the pursuit of political aims.

It is that second part that represents the crucial distinction.  Without it, nearly every kind of crime is tantamount to terrorism.  Consider the fact that there are deep psychological wounds from a mugging, but it is not equated to terrorism.

The “political aims” part of the definition is necessary, because it allows for the greater punishment.  If every crime exacts a psychological toll, then there needs to be something more to differentiate terrorism and allow us to more severely punish the perpetrators.  The “political aims” component creates that necessary line.

Posted in Law