An Extreme Injustice: Evaluating the American Judicial Response to Incidents of Domestic Terrorism

Authors

Presenter(s)

Kathryn McAuliffe

Comments

2:20-2:40, Kennedy Union 311

Files

Description

Response methods to incidents of domestic terrorism vary greatly but all maintain one common thread: failure, because there is currently no federal charge for domestic terrorism which has led to significant breakdowns in the legal response to acts of domestic terrorism. This also relates to accountability and legitimacy in the American judicial and criminal justice systems. To better understand the current situation, a qualitative, descriptive case study will be used to evaluate specific moments in American politics that are considered domestic terrorism. Through analysis of archival, court and media documents, an assessment of these cases will yield deeper insight into the workings of the American judicial system and the way the nation responds to terrorism. Responses, currently, fail to hold terrorists accountable and do not grant legitimacy to what some consider the greatest threat to America––hate. Policy recommendations and changes should be made to ensure accountability and legitimacy are granted to these threats. Only when acts of domestic terrorism are regarded at the same level as threats of international terrorism will we have granted the proper legitimacy to domestic terrorism. Increased recognition of this danger and possible outcomes will help steer us to a more secure nation.

Publication Date

4-23-2025

Project Designation

Honors Thesis

Primary Advisor

Christopher B. Brough

Primary Advisor's Department

Political Science

Keywords

Stander Symposium, College of Arts and Sciences

Institutional Learning Goals

Scholarship; Critical Evaluation of Our Times; Diversity

Recommended Citation

"An Extreme Injustice: Evaluating the American Judicial Response to Incidents of Domestic Terrorism" (2025). Stander Symposium Projects. 3939.
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/stander_posters/3939