Skip to main content

Difference between Terrorism and Crime

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TERRORISM & CRIME

Crime is the behaviour that is socially unacceptable and causes harm to an individual or a group of individuals. Theft, robbery, burglary, corruption, embezzlement, physical and mental violence, rape and killing are categorised as crimes.

Terrorism is a concept that becomes hard to have a universally acceptable definition. This difficulty to pinpoint an act has been one of the main reasons why the world is grappling with a hundred headed monster called terrorism. Though everyone accepts that terrorism is a type of crime. This is an article that intends to differentiate between terrorism and crime.

There are laws to deal with crimes in all societies and punishments given to criminals with respect to the severity of these crimes. But the question is how does one decide on the punishment for a crime as big as killing hundreds of people with a single act of terrorism as has been the situation in recent times.

Terrorism that is create panic, and spread fear in the minds of a society. Terrorism is violence that personifies a naked truth that has spread it tentacles in all parts of the world. If we look back into history, even before ancient civilisations, punishments for some serious crimes were brutal in nature and given to criminals in the open for everybody to see and take a lesson from them. That was done to bring s fear in the minds of people so that they won’t indulge in such crimes. It would be described as state of terrorism but as it was meant for the overall goof and betterment of the society, it was accepted.

The modern system of crime and punishment is based on a judicial system where a criminal pleads guilty and is sentenced in jail with respect to his crime. But a terrorist, even when he is caught, never accepts guilty in his views, that what he has done is not wrong at all and it is done for good of a section of the population. This brings us to the origin or roots of terrorism and also the difficulty of finding a universally acceptable definition of terrorism.

Terrorism as an international danger is not new as many countries of the world are facing the wrath of terrorism for decades now. It is easy distinguish between a crime and act of terrorism on the grounds of guilt/innocence proceedings and sentencing processes. As a normal criminal, when he pleads guilty, is given a sentence in keeping with his crime and serves the sentence in the jail. But the act of terrorism works on a ideology. It is belief and faith the encourages to involve in acts of terrorism because they believe that this is the only way to make grievances heard or felt. 

Sardar Bhagat Singh threw bombs in a legislative assembly, he was considered as terrorist by the British administration and he was tried accordingly. But for entire India, he was a hero, martyr, a symbol of resistance to British oppression. 

The same way, the world saw terrorism until 9/11 happened. The images of twin towers collapsing and subsequent loss of 3000 lives shook the whole word and made the world say out loud that enough is enough. Those who were against terrorism came together under the leadership of the US and then the President of US event went to the extent of saying that nations that pledged support to war on terror were allies while those who were against it were rivals of the alliance. The world clearly got divided into those who were against terrorism and those who those who supported it.

The untiring efforts of the allies in the war on terror has led to many victories amidst irregular acts of violence involved in by terrorist but with the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden by American Forces in Pakistan. This is a clear sign that the civilized society is winning its war on terror and there is no place for horrible crime like terrorism in the civilised world. No ideology, no belief can justify killing of innocent people and no religion allows anybody to involve in such heinous crimes.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more