The field of counter-terrorism studies has witnessed significant growth over the past two decades. Despite this growth, research on the sentencing of terrorist offenders remains relatively limited. This scoping review aims to comprehensively map this research area in terms of volume, nature, and characteristics, adopting a rigorous and transparent approach, resulting in the inclusion of 59 studies. After mapping these studies according to their general characteristics (specifically the historical and geographical distribution, and the adopted research methods), this review delves deeper into the specific characteristics of quantitative studies (including the timeframe of each dataset, the sample sizes, the coded variables and the statistical strategies used). A thematic analysis of the studies reveals key findings concerning legislation and its impact on terrorism trials, sentencing principles and guidelines, as well as specific factors influencing sentencing outcomes. Additionally, the review features recommendations for future research, as outlined in existing studies. The discussion section outlines the implications for policy and practice, presents recommendations for scholars, and reflects on the limitations of this review. In particular, a plea is made for more mixed methods-driven research within European countries, by establishing open-source databases based on official documentation.
AlexanderA.TurkingtonR. (2018). Treatment of terrorists: How does gender affect justice?CTC Sentinel, 11(8), 24–29.
2.
AmiraultJ.BouchardM. (2015). A group-based recidivist sentencing premium? The role of context and cohort effects in the sentencing of terrorist offenders. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(4), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.12.002
3.
AmiraultJ.BouchardM. (2017). Timing is everything: The role of contextual and terrorism-specific factors in the sentencing outcomes of terrorist offenders. European Journal of Criminology, 14(3), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815578194
4.
AmiraultJ.BouchardM.FarrellG.AndresenM. A. (2016). Criminalizing terrorism in Canada: Investigating the sentencing outcomes of terrorist offenders from 1963 to 2010. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(4), 769–810. https://doi.org/0091-4169/16/10604-0769
5.
BerkellK. (2017). Risk reduction in terrorism cases: Sentencing and the post-conviction environment. Journal for Deradicalization, 13(4), 276–341.
6.
BielamowiczI. (2021). The impact of foreign affiliation and citizenship on the prosecution of political violence in the United States. In LoadenthalM. (Ed.), Prosecuting political violence (pp. 112–131). Routledge.
7.
Bradley-EngenM. S.DamphousseK. R.SmithB. L. (2009). Punishing terrorists: A re-examination of U.S. federal sentencing in the postguidelines era. International Criminal Justice Review, 19(4), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567709348357
8.
Bradley-EngenM. S.EngenR. L.ShieldsC.DamphousseK. R.SmithB. L. (2012). The time penalty: Examining the relationship between time to conviction and trial vs. plea disparities in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 829–857.
9.
BrownG. D. (2012). Notes on a terrorism trial: Preventive prosecution, material support and the role of the judge after United States v. Mehanna. Harvard National Security Journal, 4(1), 1–57.
10.
BrownG. D. (2013). Punishing terrorists: Congress, the sentencing commission, the guidelines, and the courts. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23(3), 517–551.
11.
BurtisM.ButlerL. (2021). Friend or foe? An analysis of factors influencing sentence length in the prosecution of terrorism. In LoadenthalM. (Ed.), Prosecuting political violence (pp. 68–91). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003038726
12.
ChesneyR. M. (2007). Federal prosecution of terrorism-related offenses: Conviction and sentencing data in light of the soft-sentence and data-reliability critiques. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 11(4), 851–902.
13.
CrowleyM. G. (2010). Tough on terrorists: Challenging traditional sentencing principles in Australia?Federal Sentencing Reporter, 22(4), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2010.22.4.279
14.
DamphousseK. R.ShieldsC. (2007). The morning after: Assessing the effect of major terrorism events on prosecution strategies and outcomes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(2), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207301362
15.
De GoedeM.De GraafB. (2013). Sentencing risk: Temporality and precaution in terrorism trials. International Political Sociology, 7(3), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12025
16.
De GraafB. (2016). The Hofstad group on trial: Sentencing the terrorist risk, 2005–2014. In De GraafB.SchmidA. P. (Eds.), Terrorists on trial. A performative perspective (pp. 371–418). Leiden University Press.
17.
De GraafB. (2019). Foreign fighters on trial: Sentencing risk, 2013–2017. In N. Fadil, F. Ragazzi, & M. de Koning (Eds.), Radicalization in Belgium and the Netherlands (pp. 97–130). I.B. Tauris.
18.
DiabR. (2011). Sentencing for terrorism offences: A comparative review of emerging jurisprudence. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 15(3), 267–297.
19.
DiabR. (2013a). R v. Khawaja and the frought question of rehabilitation in terrorism sentencing. Queen’s LJ, 39(2), 587–619.
20.
DiabR. (2013b). Sentencing of terrorism offences after 9/11: A comparative review of early case law. In Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice. (Ed.), Terrorism, law and democracy (pp. 347–381).
21.
FloydS. (2021). Irredeemably violent and undeterrable: How flawed assumptions justify a broad application of the terrorism enhancement, contradict sentencing policy, and diminish U.S. national security. The Georgetown Law Journal Online, 109, 142–172.
22.
FringsD.RiceK.AlberyI. (2018). The effects of religion and stereotype content on verdicts and sentence severity when defending terror charges. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 14(1), 37–54.
23.
GalicaN. (2020). Lifting the veil: The impact of framing on sentencing disparities between males and females convicted of terrorism since the rise of ISIS. UIC Law Review, 53(1), 113–162.
24.
GruenewaldJ.RatcliffK.LucasH. (2022). Criminal justice responses to right-wing extremist (RWE) violence in the United States. In PerryB.GruenewaldJ.ScrivensR. (Eds.), Right-wing extremism in Canada and the United States (pp. 491–513). Palgrave MacMillan.
25.
HarmsJ. (2017). The war on terror and accomplices: An exploratory study of individuals who provide material support to terrorists. Security Journal, 30(2), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.48
26.
HeinrichD. P.ThorntonA. E.MorganR. M.BouhanaN. (2012). An analysis of forensic evidence used in the prosecution of terrorism cases in Britain between 1972 and 2008. Policing (Bradford, England), 7(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pas064
27.
HemmingbyC.BjørgoT. (2016). The trial and sentencing. In HemmingbyC.BjørgoT. (Eds.), The dynamics of a terrorist targeting process: Anders B. Breivik and the 22 July attacks in Norway (pp. 77–86). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57997-3
28.
HoffmannP. (2019). The “La Belle” trial: The sentencing of a terrorist bomber under the German penal code. German Law Journal, 6(3), 667–687. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200013857
29.
HorganJ.ShortlandN.AbbascianoS. (2018). Towards a typology of terrorism involvement: A behavioral differentiation of violent extremist offenders. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 5(2), 84–102. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/tam0000102
30.
IstiqomahM. (2020). Understanding terrorism sentencing decisions in Indonesia: A southern criminology approach. University of New South Wales.
31.
JacksonS. M.RatcliffK.GruenewaldJ. (2021). Gender and criminal justice responses to terrorism in the United States. Crime and Delinquency, 69(5), 1044–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211047535
32.
JohnsonB. D. (2012). Cross-classified multilevel models: An application to the criminal case processing of indicted terrorists. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(1), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9157-3
33.
KellyR. (2019). Sentencing terrorism offences: No harm intended. Criminal Law Review, 7(9), 764–770.
34.
LeeF.WalkerC. (2022). The sentencing of precursor terrorism crimes in the United Kingdom. In WalkerC.AngliM. L.MeliaM. C. (Eds.), Precursor crimes of terrorism: The criminalisation of terrorism risk in comparative perspective (pp. 316–334). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
35.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H. & O'Brien, K.K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
36.
LoweD. (2021). Preparation of terrorist acts, section 5 terrorism act 2006: Evidence required and sentencing guidelines. Expert Witness Journal, 94–98.
37.
McCannW. S. (2018). The role of sentencing in criminal appeals: An exploratory analysis of terrorism appeals (1988–2015). University of La Verne Law Review, 40(1), 1–30.
38.
McCarthyA. (2004). Terrorism on trial: The trials of Al Qaeda. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36(2), 513–522.
39.
McGarrityN. (2013). ‘Let the punishment match the offence’: Determining sentences for Australian terrorists. International Journal for Crime and Justice, 2(1), 1–15.
40.
McLoughlinJ. (2010). Deconstructing United States sentencing guidelines section 3A1.4: Sentencing failure in cases of financial support for foreign terrorist organizations. Law & Inequality, 28(1), 51–117.
41.
NesbittM. (2021a). Sentencing the Toronto 18: Lessons from then, lessons for now. Manitoba Law Journal, 44(1), 370–397.
42.
NesbittM. (2021b). Violent crime, hate speech or terrorism? How Canada views and prosecutes far-right extremism (2001–2019). Common Law World Review, 50(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779521991557
43.
NesbittM.HaggD. (2020). An empirical study of terrorism prosecutions in Canada: Elucidating the elements of the offences. Alberta Law Review, 57(3), 595–648. https://doi.org/10.29173/alr2590
44.
NesbittM.OxobyR.PotierM. (2019). An empirical and qualitative assessment of terrorism sentencing decisions in Canada since 2001: Shifting away from the fundamental principle and towards cognitive biases(IZA Discussion Papers No. 12255). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3390245
45.
PyneA. (2011). The mood and temper of the public: R v Lodhi and the principles of sentencing in the war on terror. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 23(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2011.12035917
46.
RoachK. (2014). Be careful what you wish for? Terrorism prosecutions in post-9/11 Canada. Queen’s LJ, 40(1), 99–140.
47.
RondonY. (2018). Treatment of domestic terrorism court cases: Class and mental health in the criminal system. The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 26(2), 741–792.
48.
SaidW. E. (2014). Sentencing terrorist crimes. Ohio State Law Journal, 75(3), 477–528.
49.
Saif-Alden WattadM. (2006). Is terrorism a crime or an aggravating factor in sentencing?Journal of International Criminal Justice, 4(5), 1017–1030. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mql078
50.
SameerA. (2016). Is history repeating itself? Sentencing young American Muslims in the war on terror. The Yale Law Journal, 126(5), 1520–1576.
51.
ScanlonZ. (2014). Punishing proximity: Sentencing preparatory terrorism in Australia and the United Kingdom. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 25(3), 763–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2014.12035997
52.
ShieldsC.DamphousseK. R.SmithB. L. (2006). Their day in court: Assessing guilty plea rates among terrorists. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986206292370
53.
SmithB. L.DamphousseK. R. (1996). Punishing political offenders: The effect of political motive on federal sentencing decisions. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 34(3), 289–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01209.x
54.
SmithB. L.DamphousseK. R. (1998). Terrorism, politics, and punishment: A test of structural-contextual theory and the “liberation hypothesis”. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01240.x
55.
SmithB. L.DamphousseK. R. (2002). American terrorism study: Patterns of behavior, investigation and prosecution of American terrorists(Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice)
56.
SmithB. L.DamphousseK. R.JacksonF.SellersA. (2002). The prosecution and punishment of international terrorists in federal courts: 1980–1998. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(3), 311–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00093.x
57.
StrømmenE. E. J. (2017). Jihadi brides or female foreign fighters? Women in Da’esh—From recruitment to sentencing(GPS Policy Brief 01/2017).
58.
WeaverM.DotyA. (2021). Gender, jail, and injustice: Gender interaction effects on judicial sentencing rhetoric. In LoadenthalM. (Ed.), Prosecuting political violence: Collaborative research and method (pp. 132–150). Routledge.
59.
YonR.MiltonD. (2021). Examining the outcome of investigations and prosecutions of extremism in the United States. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2021.1987659
60.
ZaiaR. (2017). Mental health experts in terrorism cases: Reclaiming the status of rehabilitation as a sentencing principle. Criminal Law Quarterly, 64, 548.
61.
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
62.
ColquhounH.LevacD.O’BrienK.StrausS.TriccoA.PerrierL.KastnerM.MoherD. (2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(12), 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
63.
De CoenselS. (2020). Counter-terrorism & criminal law. A normative legitimacy test of terrorism-related offences on expression, information and movement. Maklu.
64.
De GraafB.SchmidA. P. (2016). Terrorists on trial: A performative perspective. Leiden University Press.
65.
GrantM. J.BoothA. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
66.
GruenewaldJ.KleinB. R.HayesB. E.ParkinW. S.JuneT. (2024). Examining disparities in case dispositions and sentencing outcomes for domestic violent extremists in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 70(1), 126–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221109769
67.
GusenbauerM.HaddawayN. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of google scholar, pubmed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
68.
HallM. A.WrightR. F. (2008). Systematic content analysis of judicial opinions. California Law Review, 96(1), 63–122.
69.
HardynsW.SnaphaanT.DieussaertJ. (2020). Wat kunnen open bronnen ons leren over de crime-terror nexus in België?Panopticon, 41(2), 160–180.
70.
LoadenthalM. (2021). Prosecuting political violence: Collaborative research and method. Routledge.
71.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 6(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
72.
MunnZ.PetersM.SternC.TufanaruC.McArthurA.AromatarisE. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
73.
NesbittM.RoachK.HofmannD.LeeK. (2021). Canadian terror: Multi-disciplinary perspectives on the toronto 18 terrorism trials. Manitoba Law Journal, 44(1).
74.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D., et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
75.
PetersM. D. J.GodfreyC.McInerneyP.MunnZ.TriccoA. C.KhalilH. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In AromatarisE.MunnZ. (Eds.), JBI manual for evidence synthesis (pp. 406–451). Joanna Briggs Institute.
76.
PhamM.RajicA.GreigK.SargeantJ.PapadopoulosaA.McEwenaS. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: Advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(4), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123
77.
Van Der WoudeM. (2010). Wetgeving in een Veiligheidscultuur: Totstandkoming van Antiterrorismewetgeving in Nederland bezien vanuit Maatschappelijke en (Rechts)Politieke Context. Leiden University.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
