Risk Reduction in Terrorism Cases: Sentencing and the Post-Conviction Environment

Abstract

This article explores existing underpinnings in the United States criminal justice system for post-conviction risk reduction measures in terrorism cases.  The purpose of these measures is to reduce the risk of future criminality by those already convicted of violent extremist offenses, thereby protecting public safety while also benefiting individuals and communities. Specifically, integrating specialized risk and needs assessments into terrorism cases at sentencing and during the corrections process constitutes one possible risk reduction measure.  When administered to individuals convicted of providing material support or other terrorism-related offenses, rigorous evaluations can supply courts with information significant for sentencing and, when appropriate, structuring individualized rehabilitation approaches.  In addition to assessment tools, rehabilitation and reintegration programs constitute potential risk reduction measures.  Risk reduction programs would supplement and enhance, not replace, existing correctional methods including incarceration and supervised release.  The District of Minnesota federal court is pioneering a program of disengagement and deradicalization for terrorism defendants, and other courts likely will develop similar approaches.  However, appropriate judicial bodies have yet to adopt proactive roles in developing national policy guidance in this area. This article aims to further the discussion of reducing recidivism risk in terrorism cases by clarifying the legal and technical issues that would require resolution as prerequisites for the consideration and potential development of post-conviction programming.