Criminology has historically focused on conventional, localized crime that violates specific legal statutes. Terrorism, however, presents a unique challenge: it is a high-stakes crime of violence, but its primary motive is ideological and political. For criminology, the study of terrorism is a mandate to investigate political deviance, group socialization into violence, and the structural factors that breed extremism. The field's engagement intensified dramatically following the 9/11 attacks, which triggered the global policy response known as the "War on Terror." This response did not merely increase police vigilance; it fundamentally restructured the legislative, judicial, and law enforcement landscape across democratic nations. Suddenly, military and intelligence tools were brought to bear on domestic policing, creating a hybrid form of justice often termed securitization. This editorial contends that the primary role of criminology today is not just to understand the terrorist, but to critically scrutinize the state's response.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
1. Integrating Terrorism into Criminological Theory
Before the WOT, criminologists often relied on simplified models of political dissent. Post-9/11, the discipline rapidly integrated terrorism by applying and adapting core theories of social deviance and group dynamics.
1.1. The Act as Instrumental Political Crime
Criminology successfully framed terrorism as a form of instrumental crime, violence committed not for personal gain (like robbery) or expressive rage, but as a strategic means to achieve political ends. This allows the application of models like Rational Choice Theory, where the terrorist organization strategically weighs targets, timing, and risk against political impact. However, the field recognizes that ideology often overrides pure rational choice. Social Learning Theory explains how ideological commitment is transmitted: individuals do not spontaneously become terrorists but are socialized into an extremist subculture, often online or within tight social networks, where techniques, rationalizations, and moral justifications for violence are learned and reinforced.
1.2. The Process of Radicalization
The most important contribution of criminology is the development of systematic models to understand radicalization, the psychological and sociological process by which individuals come to accept and advocate for political violence. These models shift the focus from the static label of "terrorist" to the dynamic, preventable process of becoming one. One powerful illustration is Fathali Moghaddam's Staircase to Terrorism Model. This model visualizes the radicalization path as a narrow staircase where psychological barriers filter out most individuals. Criminology uses this model to argue that effective counter-terrorism must focus on the earliest intercepts, addressing structural grievances and providing alternative, non-violent political pathways, before individuals ascend the psychological staircase.
1.3. Desistance and Deradicalization
Once individuals are incarcerated, the challenge shifts to desistance (ceasing criminal behavior) and deradicalization (changing the core ideological commitment). Criminology emphasizes that traditional prison settings often fail, sometimes acting as "universities for extremism" where inmates solidify their radical identities. Effective strategies, rooted in rehabilitation and restorative justice principles, involve:
Challenging Narratives: Using credible, faith-based, or ideological mentors to systematically deconstruct extremist doctrine.
Addressing Structural Needs: Providing vocational training, education, and psychological support to resolve the underlying feelings of exclusion and futility.
Community Reintegration: Ensuring robust post-release support to prevent the lack of social capital- a powerful criminogenic factor- from leading to relapse and recidivism.The Securitization Paradigm of the War on Terror.
The primary impact of the WOT on the CJS has been the institutionalization of securitization- the translation of a military and intelligence problem into a domestic law enforcement and judicial structure. This paradigm shift can be analyzed across three major policy areas:
2. The Expansion of Surveillance and Net-Widening
Post-9/11 legislation, notably in the United States and the United Kingdom, dramatically expanded state surveillance powers. This shift moved law enforcement from targeted, reasonable-suspicion investigations to mass, untargeted data collection. Technologies like ubiquitous CCTV, biometric data collection (e.g., facial recognition), and expansive internet monitoring have become normalized tools of domestic policing. Criminology views this as net-widening, the expansion of social control that captures an ever-larger segment of the population, often leading to the over-policing and criminalization of ordinary behavior in targeted communities. This move erodes the principle of due process by prioritizing pre-emption over evidence-based suspicion, demanding that citizens prove their innocence rather than the state proving their guilt.
3. The Rise of Pre-emptive Policing
The WOT mandated a shift to pre-emptive policing, the strategy of intervening before a crime occurs. This has manifested through the increased use of confidential informants and sting operations, often targeting vulnerable individuals by providing the means or opportunity to plot a crime they might not have otherwise conceptualized or executed. While intended to disrupt plots, this practice raises deep ethical and legal concerns. Criminologists argue that these methods risk entrapment and rely heavily on the criminalization of preparatory acts (e.g., "material support" statutes). The focus on pre-emption can generate a state of permanent low-level suspicion, damaging the vital relationship of trust between police and the communities they are sworn to protect, a relationship crucial for intelligence sharing and cooperative policing.
4. The Blurring of Law Enforcement and Military Roles
The WOT dissolved the traditional wall separating domestic law enforcement (policing, arrest, trial) from foreign intelligence and military action. Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs), for example, combine FBI, local police, and intelligence assets. This fusion leads to the adoption of military-style operational strategies and an intelligence-led approach to policing that is often opaque and less accountable than standard criminal investigation. Furthermore, the legal status of detainees, the use of extraordinary renditions, and the expansion of the penal code to prosecute "enemy combatants" in civilian courts have tested the legal limits of international and domestic law. Criminology must critically assess whether this militarization of justice is a necessary security measure or a dangerous precedent that undermines the foundational principles of the rule of law.
5. The Criminogenic Aftermath of the War on Terror
The most significant contribution of criminology to the discourse on the WOT is the critical analysis of its unintended negative consequences, establishing that the policy framework itself can be criminogenic, creating the conditions for crime, mistrust, and injustice.
5.1. Institutionalizing Bias and Profiling
The focus on specific extremist ideologies, primarily those linked to Islam, has led to the institutionalization of racial and religious profiling within counter-terrorism operations. This systemic bias alienates the very communities most critical to preventing terrorism. Criminology recognizes that such discriminatory policing creates profound feelings of injustice and social exclusion, the very "Ground Floor" grievances Moghaddam’s model identifies as prerequisites for radicalization. Thus, policies designed to prevent terrorism can inadvertently create the social and psychological conditions that fuel it.
5.2. The Erosion of Civil Liberties
The permanent expansion of state power under the WOT framework represents a severe setback for civil liberties. The normalization of mass surveillance, the ease with which metadata can be collected, and the use of secretive courts for security matters create a chilling effect on free speech and political dissent. Criminology cautions that a state that sacrifices individual freedom for the promise of absolute security is one that risks losing the democratic values it claims to protect, ultimately rendering the victory hollow.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
The role of terrorism and the War on Terror in the field of criminology is defined by a necessary tension: the need to effectively counter political violence while critically safeguarding democratic values. The WOT paradigm, built on the urgent need for security after 9/11, has proven to be a blunt instrument that has inflicted significant collateral damage on civil liberties and community trust. Criminology's future mandate is to advocate for a transition from a securitization model to a public health and justice model of counter-terrorism. This requires a shift in priorities from pre-emptive surveillance to evidence-based intervention and desistance strategies like Re-establish Due Process, Invest in Community Resilience, Apply Desistance Principles and Enforce Organizational Transparency. The greatest defense against terrorism is not an impenetrable security state, but a resilient, inclusive, and just society that provides non-violent alternatives for political expression.
