Terrorism Vs Traditional Crime Differences

How Can a Traditional Crime Also Be Terrorism?

Not every traditional act of crime is a terrorist act. But some terrorist acts can be classified both as traditional crimes (such as destruction of property or murder) as well as terrorist acts. Terrorists often engage in acts which exhibit wanton recklessness towards human life. For example, even if a terrorist does not specifically intend to kill people, calling ahead to a public location before a bomb is detonated is still both a crime and potentially manslaughter (if someone dies), because of the nature of the act.

According to the United Kingdom’s definition of terrorism, created, no doubt, as a result of its struggles with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), terrorism is defined as distinct from ordinary crime because it is “designed to influence the government, or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public. The use or threat must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause” (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2021, par.1). Thus, someone may act violently towards another person because of ideological motivations that are rooted in a particular racist ideology, but if the intention is not with the purpose of specifically influencing the government, the act might be classified as a hate crime, but not terrorism.

Not all terrorism is necessarily violent. Electronic criminal disruptions that cause significant chaos, again with a specific political purpose, may be classified as terrorism (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2021). The intention behind the act, therefore, is at the root of defining terrorism, although usually acts which only have minor repercussions except for the individuals who are involved are not classified as terrorism. As the name suggests, terrorism has a specific purpose in the sense that it is designed to cause ordinary people to feel terror carrying out the acts of their daily lives in a manner that ordinary crime does not.