The government is right on terrorist sentencing | thearticle

The British government appears to be moving swiftly on its electoral promise to get tough on Islamist terrorism, including the announcement of tougher sentencing for terror offenders. This

is undoubtedly a popular policy, but it is not a populist one, as much of the reaction on Twitter dismissed it (not much more evidence is needed on how disconnected Twitter is from public

opinion). The criminal justice system is ill-equipped to deal with the unique threat of Islamist terror and this bolstering is long overdue. The modest increase in minimum sentencing for

terrorists put forward by the government is far from draconian. Sure, no one wants to see some impressionable teenager who flirted with Isis propaganda locked up for 30 years, but these

proposals are for dealing with very real, and very dangerous terrorists. In the rush to frame terrorists as vulnerable or manipulated, it is easy to forget they are part of the picture. The

problem is that many critics start from the position that the current system is adequate, and that the government is either turning to populist criminal justice policies or making arbitrary

grabs for power. This is not the case. Current sentences are not only paltry, they are a danger to the public. Take Usman Khan. November 2019’s London Bridge terrorist was part of a credible

and serious terror plot against the London Stock Exchange. Yet he was back on the streets just six years later to murder two innocents, in one of the most tragic acts of violence in recent

memory. Evidence suggests that terrorist recidivism is a greater risk with individuals in their 20s, before declining into the 30s and 40s. Khan was just 26 upon release, and 28 when he

attacked. Add to this mix that Khan is thought to have been part of an active terror cell with designs on a mass casualty attack. Any signs of reform or repentance should have been balanced

against this and other alarming risk factors. Sadly, this public safety aspect of the debate has been sorely absent since the London Bridge rampage. Pointless accusations of “politicising”

the attack (terrorism is political, and so is any solution) were thrown around in the aftermath by all sides, and the debate was, unsurprisingly, presented as a binary choice between

rehabilitation and punishment. More recently, some commentators were quick to point out that terrorists were unlikely to be deterred by tougher sentencing. Perhaps, but this misses the

point. Tougher sentencing is intended to keep innocent people safe from dangerous and committed extremists. Some have proposed greater investment in de-radicalisation programmes, but these

cannot be a substitute for enforced disengagement from terror for more serious cases, at least until the individual risk is acceptably lowered. In the pages of the _Atlantic_, Graeme Wood

points out that radicalisation and deradicalisation are far from symmetrical as often presented. Terrorists willingly and organically radicalise, whereas prison deradicalisation is an

imposition by the state. To put it in most uncharitable terms, we should be sceptical that a handful of involuntary counselling sessions will _deprogramme_ a terrorist. Despite this, the

government proposals to increase sentencing for terrorism offences do not actually come at the expense of rehabilitation and deradicalisation programmes. The bill proposes an increase in

“specialist psychologists”, “specially trained imams” and increased training for prison and probation staff, all of whom will contribute to challenging extremist behaviour and beliefs. So

deradicalisation efforts will rightly continue, but as there’s no way of predicting success or timeframes. Separating terrorists from the rest of society to prevent harm remains the safest

bet. On the other hand, there are cases where either permanent disengagement or even punitive sentences may be appropriate. Some people should simply never get out. South Londoner Richard

Reid (better known as the Shoe Bomber) is currently serving three life sentences plus 110 years in a maximum security facility in Colorado. It can count Abu Hamza, the Unabomber and El Chapo

 among a litany of other murderers, terrorists and thugs as residents. Reid joins them because, were it not for his sweaty feet, he would have been behind one of the worst terrorist

atrocities in history. Compare this to Britain, where in 2015 one of the harshest sentences for Isis fighters was dished out to Imran Khawaja, a man who was filmed holding a bag of severed

human heads proclaiming his disgust at the carved up kuffar. _If _Khawaja serves his full sentence he will be out in seven years. In a just world he would be facing war crimes charges at an

international court. In cases like these, delivering the maximum sentence may be the most appropriate course of action to both protect the public and secure justice for the victims.

Additionally, as prison extremism expert Ian Acheson has suggested, some offenders may need to be kept beyond their sentence if the risk to the public has not been reduced. Modest four to

eight year sentences for extremism are clearly insufficient. Many of these offenders are deeply committed individuals and short to middle-term sentences run the risk of increasing

radicalisation. What’s more, those who have clearly committed heinous crimes overseas against Iraqis, Syrians, Kurds and Yazidis are either already walking the streets or soon will be. The

government’s proposals are far from a state power grab. They are a necessary and timely rebalancing of the rights of the offender towards the rights of victims, past, present _and_ future.