According to the new theory of punishment (Reformative theory) It states that a person who had done a crime should be put in the prison . the question here rises why in prison not to kill him . prison is only so that in a time by reformation may be his mind setup will change and he will be ready for doing good for the society and state .Now as my opinion regarding criminal justice measures It is best to take such steps becuse before a men fell in terrorist activaties is a human being . the question is why he fall prey in this activity, to know about this it is important to make such steps through which a man can be reformed. On the other hand it is right a man of terrorist link is a threat for the state security so why we prevent him after doing a lot of killings . the answer is simple a man who is threat for state will be by reformatively ways benefical and the good asset for the society in fruture.

I'm not an expert, but, from my point of view, criminal justice is not very effective in preventing terrorism, because in my opinion terrorism is like a desease of the society. If only one people thinks or wants to be a terrorist, even if this people will never act any terrorist activity, the problem exists and it means that the society, the state and justice in general have failed. I don't mean that terrorists are not personnally responsible! Criminal justice must punish them!!! But they are a symptom of a human community with problems, and society and state must act in order to reduce forces and the social conflicts able to make people guess that they need to use violence in order to be listened or considered.

Just like my colleaguie Riccado Andreotti, I am not an expert too but my humble point of view is that terrorism is so multi-faceted such that fighting it needs a combination of strategies and tactics. In the first place I think all of us agree that terrorism is a frontless war-it can be waged biologically, chemically, physically etc. I believe, having an effective criminal justice system is a good step in the right direction towards preventing terrorism. I see terrorism increasing if countries do not have a well tailored counter terrorism legislation.Most countries do not have such legislation in place partly due to the fact that terrorism is a fairly new phenomenon on the global scale and some countries or regions have been and are still cool.It is in such countries or regions that when they are unexpectedly attacked they deliver harsh justice that is not legislation based. This justice, in most cases, is not restorative in nature and this makes pepertrators of terrorism choose to die in the trench than be subjected to heinous prison conditions or a botched justice system. The countries should embark on capacity building so that law enforcement agencies, prosecutors and judges can be trained to handle terrorism related cases. This will ensure professional justice rather than ill-justice that makes terrorists radicalize more or dig more trenches. The judges must deliver appropriate sentences, deliver the justice timely since justice delayed is justice denied. The judiciary and law enforcement agencies must also observe human rights in the delivery of justice. In short, I am trying to say, even if terrorists cause heinous crimes, effective justice can certainly make the difference rather than ill-founded justice. I am willing to hear feedback from dear colleagues.

Looking at the problem from the side of the Justice system I completely agree with dear colleague Elias Benyu, but in general I think the problem is that if you have "something to lose" you will be afraid of being punished, but, in many cases terrorists are so politically or religiously influenced that they don't care about possible punishment, so that the only pragmatic solution could be an effective intelligence system able to prevent the moves of the terrorist organizations

I think we have some indicators for a needed change in the services police deliver; and, terrorism is just one of those indicators. Given this, I advocate for a concerted effort to re-train police to recognize types of disputes and the appropriate ways to resolve disputes. As it stands, officers learn to be a judge-with-a-gun. In other words, officers learn only one dispute resolution tool: Non-Conventional Arbitration. An officer arrives at a dispute and orders everyone present to do something (e.g. sit down and shut up, or to submit to a pat-down check for weapons, etc.), then the officer listens to disputes and renders a decision: 1. one party or both will be arrested; 2. one party or both have a right to arrest each other; 3. there is no crime, but the dispute will be settled in some manner of the officer's choosing; or 4. this is a petty dispute and the parties are wasting the officer's time. Next, in an almost parental manner, the officer admonishes parties to follow his/her direction and, the officer leaves with the parting threat that: "someone is going to go to jail if I have to come back here". Then the officer leaves; yet, the dispute has rarely been resolved. (I should note here that I was an officer for almost 27 years so I'm not being unreasonably critical of police officers.)

In order to solve this problem, I recommend that we teach officers how to design dispute systems and to engage in mediation and peace keeping in addition to Non-Conventional Arbitration. Officers could be a meaningful part of the system to reduce terrorism by reducing the tension and conflict in the neighborhoods they patrol. A changed image for law enforcement will encourage concerned citizens to report activity that is suspicious and likely related to terrorism and other criminal acts.

(If you are interested, I have a working paper on this topic that I will download to my home page.)

I was a member of the British Army Intelligence Corps for 22 years, from 1965 to 1987. During the 1970s, much of my work was related to the Provisional IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. For two years in the mid-70s my job was 'source handling'. In other words, I would go out and meet members of the IRA who, for a variety of reasons, wished to give us information on Irish Republican activities. The Army was surprisingly good at this type of intelligence work, and by the late 70s we knew the identities of practically all the PIRA leaders, at local and national level.

So why did we not just go out and 'eliminate' them? Why did we not do what the Israelis do - hunt down the terrorists, shoot them, target them with booby trap devices, bulldoze their homes? In fact, there were one or two people on the British side who thought that a few selective assassinations of terrorist leaders might be justified. But anyone who thought that way was wrong, for both moral and practical reasons.

One of the fundamental principles of Western democracy and civilization is the rule of law. No-one, whether they are a member of the government, the police, or the Army is above the law. If a person is suspected of a crime, then he must be dealt with by the criminal justice system. A terrorist act is a crime. In certain circumstance we might enhance the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies, or give the military certain powers normally given only to the police, but at the end of the day, the only body with the authority to determine guilt or innocence, and to award punishment, must be a Court of Law. How can the State assert moral authority if it uses the same methods as those it calls terrorists?

Of course, this all sounds very laudable from the moral viewpoint, but there are those, including Israelis I have spoken to, who say that terrorism is not normal crime, and cannot be dealt with as such. In conversation with me, some have actually ridiculed our approach in Northern Ireland, where every terrorist incident was treated as a normal crime, and investigated as such. I have to admit that - in the short term - we might have reduced terrorist violence drastically if we had taken extra-judicial measures to get rid of the leaders of the various Irish para-military groups. But what about the long term? Apart from the moral issue, would there ever have been a political solution if we had just killed the terrorist leaders? I think not. Such a policy would have aroused such hatred in the minority community in Northern Ireland that no form of reconciliation would ever be possible. Look at Israel/Palestine. An eye for an eye, never-ending retailiation, terrorize the terrorists, how will the two sides ever be able to live with each other in the future?

The situation in Northern Ireland is not yet perfect. But it is far, far better than it was in the 1970s. In fact, it is a lot better than it was before 1969, when the discrimination and inequality that gave reise to the Troubles were rife. Many former leading figures in the Provisional IRA, including Maritn McGuinness, are now working within the democratic system and making extremely positive contributions to the political life of Northern Ireland.

I believe that the reconciliation that has taken place in Northern Ireland was only possible because the British government, the Army and police, never abandoned the Rule of Law and the criminal justice system in dealing with the 30-year campaign of political violence there.

Andrew Peck

Redwood Risk Management

Singapore

My opinion has not change from the one I had immediately after President Barack Obama ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden!! I believe and fervently too that criminal justice is the only way forward towards eradicating terrorism. Imagine what message would have been sent out to would-be terrorists if a man like Bin Laden was showed on the international media remanded in police custody and subsequently taken to court handcuffed and above all, sentenced to death after a much publicized judicial process!! That to me and to many around the world was a costly mistake and a lost opportunity to stifle terrorism. Correspondingly, there are many in the Muslim world who still believe Osama bin Laden is still alive and active and still hold him as their hero. These fanatics would have been washed away with just a criminal justice procedure against bin Laden. Instead of committing greater resources to state institutions created to counter terrorism, most Western governments particularly the UK and Australia have wasted much time in passing numerous legislation geared towards the internationalization of finance surveillance as a main counter terrorism response, leaving out the military aspects, the political discourse and above all, the criminal justice. Even as I write, the European Union and its allies including the United Nations do not still have a common definition of terrorism. Nobody deep within the US congress nor the House of Commons have made mention of the worrying concerns that most of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudis and not from Iraq nor Iran. From every indication, the European Union thinks that members of ETA should be classified as moderate terrorists and those from the Arab world are the real terrorists. This in itself is a disturbing picture. There should be unanimity among all members states of the UN directed towards countering terrorism----that unanimity is a well thought-out criminal justice system.

Thank you very much to all of you. It is indeed interesting to know that we all agree that C J intervention is important to deal with terrorism but it is effectiveness requires to be examined. From the process of police and process of punishment by court has impact on overall relationship between terrorists groups and states. This itself brings to a big question as what could be possible indicators of effectiveness of Criminal Justice that a state should strive for peaceful future?

Dear friend

It is perhaps a difficult question to answer. the terrorism is a concept which includes level at state and global if so, who will handle ...

In Indian context It is my humble opinion that there is know doubt that both ways the government is against the terrorism and has handle the situation very effectively....

Only lacunae in Indian fight is most the times victims are made or pretended to be accused of terrroraim is evident from several incidents.....

Eg. Badri masjid blast, Coimbatore blast, Hyderabad untill the Godhara rail fire and several thousand unreported cases and incidence at local level which go undetected and unquestioned

.