‘Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us and change our behaviour by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in society’ (Patrick J Kennedy). Terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims (Oxford English Dictionary). Many criminologists cannot agree upon a definition for terrorism. However, as argued by Karen Terry, ‘Terrorism can be domestic or international, based upon single issues or broad ideologies, with or without a religious foundation, and explained from a variety of psychological and sociological perspectives’, thus demonstrating the wide variety of acts which can be constituted as a terrorist act. In this case study, I aim to apply criminological concepts to two separate criminal cases (the Nice Vehicle ramming and the Berlin Truck attack). For instance, highlighting harm and victimisation where they may occur in these cases, or discussing the role and impact of the media through their coverage of these two events. I will compare and contrast both cases by applying key criminological concepts, which will allow me to further investigate the terrorist act and the criminality behind it, as well as the implications of harm and victimisation that it causes. My first chosen case, the Nice Vehicle Ramming, took place on July 14th, 2016, when a cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people who were celebrating Bastille Day. The attack claimed the lives of 86 people, and injured 458. The attack ended when police shot and killed attacker Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, during an exchange of gunfire. My second chosen case, which is the Berlin Truck attack, took place on December 19th, 2016. The incident involved driver, Anis Amri, driving a truck into a Christmas market, leaving 12 people dead and 56 others injured. The perpetrator was shot and killed by police 4 days later near Milan, Italy. Both cases were perpetrated by terrorist organisation, ISIS, and claimed the lives of innocent civilians, thus causing harm.
The first concept I aim to apply to these cases are the acts of crime and deviance. Crime is defined as an action or omission which constitutes an offence, and is punishable by the law. This differs from deviance, as deviance is an act / actions which diverge from the usual or accepted standards, often in terms of behaviour, practices or beliefs. Both acts constitute an offence which is punishable by the law, thus making them crimes. This can be saw in the way that both acts claimed the lives of many through murder, and caused harm to many other victims. Both acts are therefore deviant due to their nature of using extremist and radical beliefs / practices, which have deviated from socially accepted norms and values, and acted in unacceptable ways which have taken the lives of / endangered the lives of many. Some criminologists are critical of the concept of crime, and argue that crime does not exist. Instead, Christie argues that ‘only acts exist’. These acts are given different meanings within various social frameworks, and the meanings given to them are our data. This demonstrates the act of crime is a social construct, and enforces that the act itself is not necessarily a crime, just deemed so by social frameworks. However, whilst criminologists struggle to define the act of terrorism, one agreed upon perspective is that the act is a criminal offence.
The concepts of victimisation and harm are ones which can be usefully applied when studying the Belin vehicle attack and the Nice vehicle ramming. The term victim, which is used in many criminal situations, refers to a person who has been harmed individually and directly by the perpetrator. In this instance, there are a large number of victims, due to the aim of this criminal act (instil fear amongst society – easier to do with a larger number of victims). This differs from harm, as harm is the deliberate infliction of physical or mental pain / suffering. Both causes caused psychical harm to the victims of the attack, and emotional pain to the families / friends of the victims, as well as emotional distress amongst citizens, as is intended with such acts. This multitude of harm can be seen in the way terrorism differs from other acts of crime, as ‘what distinguishes terrorism from both vandalism and non-political crime is the motivated violence for political ends’ (Crozier, 1974), meaning the act is intentionally striking us with fear / pain in order to bring around political change. However, the idea of emotional harm is usually overlooked in scenarios like this, due to the undeniable number of victims who experienced physical pain. The emotional pain often comes as a result to by-standers or families, as they have to suffer with the memory of the incident, or deal with the catastrophic and sudden loss of a family member(s).
The Criminal Justice System (CJS) is very ineffective in dealing with terrorist instances, as this system rarely gets the chance to deal with such instances. It is often down to repressive state agencies (RSA) to deploy prevention and punishment methods, such as increasing military presence in busy public areas, or shooting to kill the perpetrators. This shoot-to-kill punishment method was undertaken in both cases, as the police both shot and killed the terrorist’s due to the threat they posed, which made it very hard for them to detain them and place them on trial with the Criminal Justice System. This method often means victims are often killed in-vain, as the perpetrators are relieved of any sentencing / suffering in prison, due to the immediate death following the attack.
Whilst social inequalities are often a large contributing factor to crime, such as the motivation to gain material wealth when considered to be poor / of a lower social status, there is no clear indication of any reproduction of social inequality in either of these cases. Rather, there are clear signs of a reproduction of fundamental and radical ideologies, which are transmitted to those who opt into following radical Islamic beliefs (in this instance, it is the perpetrators). It doesn’t demonstrate inequality, rather it demonstrates acts which attempt to gain power and induce fear on the victims / those who become aware of such events. However, a counter argument against this statement comes from French author and economist, Thomas Piketty, who argues that ‘inequality is a major driver of Middle Eastern terrorism’ (Long, 2015). This suggests that inequalities within the middle east / radical Islamic followers has led to the criminal acts being committed, and therefore suggests that the attempts to gain power and induce fear are simply a way of expressing dismay at such inequalities and attempting to bring around social change. Another counter argument to the belief that this act demonstrates no social inequality comes from Krieger and Meierrieks (2010) in their article ‘Does Income Inequality Lead to Terrorism?’ in which they use panel data for 65 countries between 1975 and 1999, and argue that ‘higher levels of inequality are robustly associated with more terrorist activity’. This supports the previous counter-argument, developing on the idea that terrorism is a crime which is undertaken as a response to social inequalities, by providing statistical / quantitative data, which highlights the correlation between areas with greater inequality, and the rates of terrorist activity in these areas.
The concept of biological and social factors influencing criminality and rates of crime is one which can be effectively applied to both of these cases. Biological factors refer to internal factors, such as chromosomal or bodily differences, which can lead a person to be more criminal. Booth and Osgood (1993) argue that testosterone leads to more deviant behaviour, as can be seen in the higher number of perpetrators being male. This can be used to explain why the perpetrators in both the Nice Vehicle Ramming and the Berlin Truck Attack were male, as the levels of testosterone pushed them into committing more crime, specifically violent crimes. This idea of men committing violent crime can be linked to Hall (2002), in which he argues that ‘the claim that men commit the most acts of physical violence is possibly the nearest that criminology has come to producing an indisputable fact’. This helps identify that men are indeed the highest offenders of violent crimes, and demonstrates that these acts may have been a result of biological predisposition (being male not female), rather than something resulting from ideologies and inequalities within society. The concept of a crisis of masculinity may be used as a further explanation of biological factors influencing crime. This concept explains male crime as a result of men committing violent crime / acts in order to maintain a masculine image, due to the decline in male jobs / role models, and the increase in female equality. This concept can be seen when Suzanne Hatty (2000: 6) argues that ‘Violence is the prerogative of the youthful male, especially when confronted by the contradictions and paradoxes of thwarted desire, and personal and social disempowerment’. This highlights how a crisis of masculinity and a threat to a man’s masculine image may lead to rises in criminality as they must use illegitimate means as a way to regain their masculine status within society. This can be seen in terms of my two chosen cases, as with both perpetrators being male the potential influence in criminality was that they suffered from a crisis of masculinity, due to the changes in the position of women and the rise of equality between both women and sexualities within society. Social factors refer to the external factors, such as environment or early socialisation, which may lead to a person being / becoming more criminal. For example, an individual’s socialisation may impact their criminal predisposition, due to the way that they are taught moral principles, or ineffective socialisation may lead to them being unable to differentiate right from wrong, leading them into making criminal decisions. This idea is supported by White (1977), who argues that ‘it is important for a child to have a source of primary socialisation, in terms of positivist ideas, as this is when, we, as humans, learn our societal moral conducts’. This emphasises the previous statement, by highlighting the way primary socialisation impacts an individual’s moral principles, which often deter them from committing crime, as they consider the effect on the individual. This links to my chosen cases by demonstrating the way in which the perpetrators may have received inadequate primary socialisation, leading to greater criminality and the intake of radical ideologies which pushed the to commit crime in the way they did.
The concept of social control is one which is demonstrated in the two chosen cases. Both the Nice Vehicle Ramming and Berlin Truck Attack demonstrate ineffective social control, as the government and other social institutions who are tasked with safeguarding civilians (RSA), were unable to do so, with this inability leading to the loss of many lives and numerous casualties suffering from non-fatal injuries. However, whilst the RSA was unable to safeguard the lives of the recorded victims, they were able to react in time to prevent any more casualties and thus safeguarded the lives of those within range of becoming a potential target, by killing the perpetrators. These instances have led to increased policing and protection, as the RSA has responded by militarising the cities / countries to protect them from further terrorist attacks (however this can be seen as ineffective due to numerous further attacks in France since the Nice Vehicle Ramming).
The media are often a major institution / agency in relation to crime and reporting crime. The media refers to the ‘mediating agencies that allow for the relay of information to take place within society’ (Zelizer, 2004: 26). The media often use stories to amplify a situation, generating a state of fear or panic. This is known as a moral panic, and is defined as ‘disproportional or hostile social reaction to a condition, person or group defined as a threat to societal values, involving stereotypical media representations and leading to demands for greater social control / creating a spiral of reaction’ (The Sage Dictionary of Criminology, 2006). This is how the media deploys a criminal event and amplifies it as a way of pushing a certain agenda (often political), encouraging fear of / against a certain event, person or group. For example, the media has used both cases / events, which were perpetrated by Muslim males as a way of creating a moral panic surrounding Islamic ideologies, ignoring the difference between Islam and radical Islamic beliefs and practices. This has caused increased negative stigma surrounding Muslim men and women, as they have become labelled as terrorists, due to the incidents of a small few. Jock Young (1971) argues that fear is a major feature of moral panics, and with terrorism aiming to induce fear amongst civilians, the moral panics become easier to amplify by the media. An increase in public fear & support for authoritarian solutions to crime problems often means the moral panics are accepted, meaning racialised and stereotypical opinions begin to form of Islamic groups, leading to racism within society, further pushing them away and marginalising them, which in turn may create more terrorists, or may anger the existing terrorists, provoking them into terrorising again. For example, in articles such as ‘Where is the Berlin Christmas market killer? German police FREE Pakistani suspect after admitting he is wrong man – as ISIS praise 'soldier' who killed 12’. The use of the capitalised word ‘FREE’ in the articles title, when surrounding a Pakistani man, demonstrates the political agenda being pushed, as they enforce the value that the terrorist must be an ethnic minority, generating fear surrounding people of this ethnic background, which often means they then turn to crime due to the self-fulfilling prophecy of said label (Merton, 1948). The use of phrases such as ‘serious threat’ and ‘urged to stay indoors’ demonstrate the way that the media generates fear and panic through the terms they specifically choose, and how this, as a whole, leads to increasing terrorism, as the media aids the aim of terrorist actions, allowing them a greater platform to fulfill their aim.
The criminological concept of place of occurrence can be applied to these cases, as it can be used to identify the urban or rural locations that the crimes were committed in, and therefore depict whether this has enhanced or decreased the opportunity to commit crime. Urban areas are defined as those ‘relating to, or characteristic of, a town or city’ (Oxford English Dictionary). In terms of both of my chosen cases, they were committed in urban environments, with both cases taking place in busy public and industrial / business districts, which were located close to the city centre. The use of busy public places allows for greater casualties and demonstrates more criminal capabilities by the terrorists, as it highlights the way that people are not safe in these areas. The environment, in both cases, consistently corresponds with the intention / message they aim to impose, by targeting a busy public place they are able to portray the message that they are to be feared and want to cause panic. Very little terrorist crime happens in rural areas, as low population numbers deter terrorists, due to the way their message will not gain the impact it does from targeting busy public / urban places.
To conclude, the concepts covered in this essay have been used briefly to explain both the cases at hand, but also explore criminality and attempt to provide stability to the viewing of terrorism as an agreed upon criminal concept. The use of concepts such as victimisation and harm, or the media’s input into crime have been used as a means of highlighting the ways key criminological concepts can be used as a means of exploring this criminality. For instance, exploring the way that victims may be chosen specifically or at random, and the impact of these events in terms of harm to both those directly affected or those around them is a way that key criminological concepts can be applied to these events as a way of investigating these events in further detail and with greater explanation.