Criminalizing the Armchair Terrorist: Entrapment and the Domestic Terrorism Prosecution

A variety of factors plague a defendant's rights in a domestic terrorism trial. This Note focuses on contemporary domestic terrorism prosecutions in which the defendants raise an entrapment defense. It suggests that federal courts apply a lower standard for prosecutors in proving predisposition...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Gantar, Dejan M. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2014
En:Año: 2014
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866135619
003 DE-627
005 20250121054858.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231018s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866135619 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866135619 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Gantar, Dejan M.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Criminalizing the Armchair Terrorist: Entrapment and the Domestic Terrorism Prosecution 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a A variety of factors plague a defendant's rights in a domestic terrorism trial. This Note focuses on contemporary domestic terrorism prosecutions in which the defendants raise an entrapment defense. It suggests that federal courts apply a lower standard for prosecutors in proving predisposition by allowing nothing more than evidence of a defendant's religious or political beliefs, or general impulse to lash out, to demonstrate predisposition. This Note further argues that this evidentiary laxity establishes a double standard in terrorism cases, and also manifests First Amendment problems. The crux of this Note is that federal courts should refine the entrapment doctrine within the terrorism-prosecution context. Rather than modify the doctrine-which arguably would result in convictions contrary to established precedent-federal courts should treat terrorism-related offenses like any other traditional crime. Further, the courts should exercise their inherent power to dismiss charges on due process grounds when the government's conduct in investigations is outrageous enough to violate fundamental notions of fairness under the Due Process Clause. By doing the above, federal courts would better preserve the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, as well as distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate threats of terrorism 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/230130215.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4391816377 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866135619 
LOK |0 005 20231018043653 
LOK |0 008 231018||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE68246253 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw