Letters to the Editor
-
terrorism, serial killers, hate crime, stalking, harrasment, and pranks
First of all, I somewhat sympathize with their cause on the most general level of environmentalism. However, everything about their method is wrong, criminal, and frankly incredibly stupid and counter productive.
Secondly, yes the term "terrorist" has been bandied about by this administration far too much. Yes they're fear mongers and have used the issue to invade privacy and suspend some provisions of the constitution. This administration's means are also wrong, criminal, and frankly incredibly stupid and counter productive.
Having said that, yes, the accused if guilty is an "eco terrorist" or something very similar if that term is too hot. Arson is a serious crime, and their repeat premeditated crimes designed to instill fear do rise above the level of ordinary arson. Also, no, that doesn't equivocate to the 9/11 hijackers.
For those who don't understand why hate crime or terrorism carries a higher penalty than random crime, let me explain.
Terrorism, hate crime, and other coordinated acts of multiple crime and targeted to magnify their cumulative effect. The total is far greater than the sum of parts. To punish an individual piecemeal for the parts would neglect the larger crime of the coordinated effect.
For a more mundane example, making a crank call is a pretty minor offense. But, repeated crank calls to an individual constitutes harassment, which is a more serious crime. Escalating that further qualifies as stalking, an even more serious crime. The total cumulative effect has to be considered, not merely the individual acts. (of course stalking should be distinct from "terrorism")
For some other examples, street fights are common battery. But systematic bashing of minorities is far more than that, because not only are the individuals victimized, but entire communities done harm as well.
A stronger example is murder. If a person commits one murder in a rage of passion, it's a very serious crime, but not as bad as a premeditated murder. It's disturbing to the community, but only to the extent that violent crime typically is. However, if a person repeatedly kills in a premeditated manner choosing targets at random, they become a serial killer, and also terrorize entire communities doing enormously more harm in addition to the killing. Also, it indicates a far more dangerous mind and threat to society than an ordinary killer. So clearly a serial killer should receive the maximum penalty taking into account the total harm done, not just the sum of individual crimes.
In this case, if guilty, they clearly acted in a deliberate and serial manner to not only commit the crimes directly, but also the intimidate and spread fear, which is additional harm done. And that does qualify them as "terrorists."
OTOH, pranksters, such as toilet papering houses or knocking over mailboxes, cant be considered "terrorists" because the crimes, even though serialized and designed to harass, don't rise to a level to qualify. They would still face some sort of cumulative punishment which additionally took into account the harassment factor though.