Should an accused criminal be charged with terrorism, as well as the crime committed?

Question

A person throws a rock into your window of your home, glass flies everywhere, and your child sits on the couch where the rock flew through. You're sitting on the couch, too watching TV. The perpetrator has run away. You, and your child were surprised, and frightened by the sudden "attack". Your child, even after the police have come, and gone, and you have assured him/her that it is safe now, is still afraid, and refuses to sit on the couch, or anywhere near the window. Your child keeps talking about who might have done it. He/she is tense.
Later, the perpetrator is caught. Should he/she be charged with terrorist acts against the family who lives in the home?
(Same thing if your home is broken into. The feeling of safety is gone, isn't it?)

Answer 1

well that would be two crimes... but terrorism wouldn't be one of them..

1st crime - throwing a deadly missle
2nd crime - vandalism

You could take that a step further and file a civil suit for trauma.

Answer 2

I read Goldie Hawn's book, "A Lotus Grows in the Mud".

She relates a story about when she was 12 or so, and a neighbor friend of her older sister molested her while she was sleeping. Instead of escalating her fears and making the event seem like the end of the world, Goldie's mother just told her that the boy was sick, and they should feel sorry for him.

Goldie said it was the smartest thing her mom could have done. She quickly put the event past her and never looked back in fear.

Now, stay with me here. I'm about to move on to something that only seems unrelated.

In Iraq, people were deathly afraid of the terrorists, who seemed like invincible, omni-present supermen. However, a tv show decided to show the very human faces behind these cowardly hit and run thugs. On tv, the Iraqi people got to see these terrorists for what they really were: scared, confused, and non-impressive people. The mystique was lifted. These terrorists no longer provoked terror because the tv viewers got to see them bawling like little children on tv. They were pathetic.

So, the same applies here. If the perpetrator is caught, he should have to come to the house in shame, led by the police. The family can then tell him all the grief he has caused. The child won't be afraid of him anymore. The child will feel empowered. He got to confront the culprit.

So, let's not make too big a deal out of a rock being thrown in a window. I know from experience. A neighbor kid did that to my house. Any other day, I would have been laying in the bed right under that window, but that night I was not. I had to clean up glass for three hours. I was furious, but I didn't escalate the matter any more than calling his parents.

If you don't make a big deal out of it, the event won't become such a huge traumatic experience. By heightening the tension these events produce, we only hurt ourselves.

Answer 3

The only way someone could be charged with terrorism would be if the attack was politically motivated.

If the attack was motivated by racial or issues of sexual orientation it might qualify as a hate crime.

If someone was hurt by either the rock or flying glass then the person could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

But as you describe it no. That one of the problems I see with hate crime laws, why should some groups of people get special treatment while others get the brush off.

Your best option would be in civil court. But getting anything other than compensation for property damage is tough.

Answer 4

Back about 60 years ago, when I was growing up, the general custom was for the offender to be escorted to the offendeds home, business etc., and face to face, make an oral apology.
At 9 years old, I had to face up to my responsibility, and apologize for 'steeling' a watermelon from Mr. Jackson's garden. AND the watermelon was still green !!
60+ years ago, I still remember it.
TODAY ??? Does the word " LAWYERS" mean anything?? How about 'Shirking ones responsibility'?