Upload
mervyn-allen-jacobs
View
221
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Deterrent Effects of Legal Sanctions on
Eco-Terrorist Attacks
Dr. Sue-Ming Yang National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan
& Yi-Yuan Su
National Chung Hsin University, Taiwan Hokkaido University, Japan
Background Information
• Since the late 90s, eco-terrorist incidents have increased dramatically
• Eco-terrorism has resulted in huge monetary losses• For example, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) has caused
an estimated $100 million in damage (from 1995-2005).
• As such, the FBI considers it to be the number one domestic terrorist threat in the U.S.
• To respond to the threats, many countermeasures have been proposed• Legal sanctions• Law enforcement operations
The Goals of this Study
• Understand the patterns and characteristics of eco-terrorism in the United States, Canada, and Japan• Identify key legislations that have been
designed to prevent eco-terrorist cases across the three countries• Examine the deterrent effects of each legal
sanction and estimate the change in risk of new attacks after the enactment of new sanctions
Eco-terrorism Trends (1970-2010)
Target Types
Target Type Animal Rights (n=645)
Environmental (n=442)
Business 45570.54%
31571.27%
Government (general) 253.88%
327.24%
Educational institution 9013.95%
204.52%
Maritime 10.16%
00.00%
Private citizens and property
568.68%
429.50%
Utilities 00.00%
143.17%
Other 264.03%
214.75%
Total 645100.00%
442100.00%
Research Questions
• What are the patterns of eco-terrorist attacks across the three countries?
• What type of legal sanctions have been used to attempt to prevent eco-terrorist attacks?
• Do legal sanctions deter eco-terrorist attacks? • What type of legislation works to prevent future
attacks?
Data and Methods
• We included 1,127 terrorist/criminal incidents committed by the 74 eco-groups across the three countries from 1970 to 2012 • Global Terrorism Database (GTD)• Eco-incident Database (EID)
• A thorough search of legal cases was done to identify eligible legal sanctions• Key legislations in each country were selected for
quantitative analysis
• Interrupted Time Series analysis and Series Hazard Modeling were used to examine the deterrent effects of the selected legal sanctions
Eco-Terrorism in the U.S.
Key Countermeasures in the U.S.
• Legislation• The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADA 1988)
• United States v. John P. Blount• The Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (AEPA)• The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) • The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
• FBI’s “Operation Backfire” (1998-2008)• Targeting the “Family” (the organized group of the ELF and
the ALF)
Eco-Terrorism in Canada and Japan
Countermeasures in Canada and in Japan
• Canada• The Canada Criminal Code of 1985 • The Health of Animal Act of 1990, sec. 64, par. (1) • The Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994• The USA and Barbarash (2002)
• Japan• Specific Measure Act on Countermeasure of Terrorism of
2001
Examining the Deterrent Effects of Corresponding Legislation
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
18019
7019
7219
7419
7619
7819
8019
8219
8419
8619
8819
9019
9219
9419
9619
9820
0020
0220
0420
0620
0820
10
Num
ber o
f atta
cks
All attacks Animal Rights Environment
Animal Enterprise Protection Act
Anti-Drug Abuse Act
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
United Statesv. P Blount
The USA PATRIOT Act
Effects of Legislation in the U.S.
Interventions
1 year pre-post Estimate
2 years pre-post Estimate
3 years pre-post Estimate
Animal rights
Envi. Animal rights
Envi. Animal rights
Envi.
ADAn.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
AEPAn.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
AETA-10.39 -15.95 -18.82 * -20.490 -27.258** -25.033*
USA PATRIOT Act
-26.35* -76.38*** -29.23** -79.059*** -32.115** -81.937**
Results of Series Hazard Model on U.S. Attacks Interventions Animal rights
attacksEnvironmentalist attacks
ADA n.s. .713***
AEPA -.653* -.446
AETA 1.192*** -.856**
AETA*M.Count -.004*** n.s.
USA PATRIOT Act -.086 -.259
Success_Dens .002*** .001
Monthly count .005*** .004***
The effects of Operation Backfire
Interventions Estimate(p value)
Operation Backfire
188.389***(.000)
Effects of Legislation Along the U.S.—Canada Border
Intervention
1 year pre-post Estimate
2 years pre-post Estimate
3 years pre-post Estimate
Animal rights
Envi. Animal rights
Envi. Animal rights
Envi.
Canada Criminal Code 1985
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Health of Animals Act, Subsection 64(1).1990
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
Migratory Birds Convention Act,1994
10.668**(.006)
-2.676 (.616)
9.717*(.012)
-3.335 (.535)
8.766* (.024)
-3.994 (.467)
Conclusion
• Eco-terrorism is unique in many regards
• Legislation with more comprehensive scope of protection on subject lead to successful deterrent effects on eco-terrorism• Both AETA and the USA PATRIOT reduce the number
of subsequent eco-attacks and the AETA further reduces the risk of new attacks • However, courts are more likely to use general
criminal codes than special laws to handle eco-terrorism
Suggestions for the Future
• Eco-terrorism is culture and society specific. No blanket prevention policy could cover issues across different countries
• Regulations focusing on protections of animals used for experimentation are needed in the future
• Importance to study spatial displacement of eco-terrorist activities after interventions like the Operation Backfire
Deterrent Effects of Legal Sanctions on
Eco-Terrorist Attacks
Dr. Sue-Ming Yang National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan
& Yi-Yuan Su
National Chung Hsin University, Taiwan Hokkaido University, Japan