Why don’t we have degrees of terrorism?
We have different classifications for the crime of “killing a person”, and those classifications encompass whether it was an accident or not, whether it was premeditated, and how many people were killed – e.g.: How serious a crime has actually been committed. But when we talk about terrorism, it’s always just “terrorism”. This results in the really sinister megacriminals being lumped in with the group of morons that can’t get it to together to leave the house without forgetting to wear pants, let alone actually arrange to blow anything up.
Most “terrorists” are less dangerous than your average serial killer or bus accident, but we still lump them all together simply because they have an agenda.
Similar to murder, I think we need some sort of classification system for these crimes:
- Intent to commit terrorism: you “plotted” with someone who may or may not have been an undercover cop, but didn’t actually acquire passports or learn how to make liquid explosives
- Manfrightening: you committed some other crime, and along the way someone got scared and called you a terrorist, but you have no stated agenda.
- Terrorism in the third degree: You actually blew up something, but no one was hurt.
- Terrorism in the second degree: You actually blew up something and killed some people, but failed to garner any sympathy from the public.
- Terrorism in the first degree: You actually blew up something, lots of people were killed, and the US declared war on some country you were unaffiliated with.
Tags: terrorism, legal definition, degree
