SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Baker DJ. J. Crim. Law 2020; 84(1): 19-36.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0022018319879846

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In this article, I shall try to outline some grounds for resisting enacting new treason-type offences. It shall be argued that an offence of treason based on the wrongness of 'betrayal' would add nothing extra to the protection that is already provided for in a plethora of terrorism offences that cover preparation, inchoate acts concerning terrorism as well as consummated terrorism attacks. I shall try to demonstrate that what supplies the normative case for criminalisation in these sorts of cases is culpability plus harm, not betrayal in itself. Betrayal is a minor aggravating feature that can be dealt with by sentencing judges. I also argue that there is no evidence that the sentences available in our terrorism legislation are not ample to deal with those who go abroad to fight in armed conflicts involving British forces. Finally, it is argued that while the common law offence of outraging public decency might plug gaps where returning Islamic State of Iraq and Syria brides make outrageous comments, it should be used only as a last resort when the speech involves hate speech of a serous kind.


Language: en

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print