222467to222472

Maria Alvanou
The majority of developed theories regarding suicide terrorism have derived from
the field of political science and the rest from the disciplines of psychology,
international relations, religion and economics. These areas of studies have dealt
with terrorism from their own point of view: Political scientists particularly focus
on the relationship between terrorism and the State, policy programs and political
institutions; international studies scholars investigate the subject in terms of the
complicated interconnections between nations and other localities, while
psychologists try to explain the inner world, thinking and motivation of the
terrorism physical actor. Moreover, suicide missions- like terrorism in generalhave
been discussed and analysed as a mode of warfare, a method of struggle, a
strategy of insurgence, a form of political protest. And all these, under the same
shadow of doubt: “terrorism or freedom fighting”, accompanied by the ongoing
problem of terrorism definitions, or the lack of it. 3 In such a plethora of studies
criminology has to offer its unique prism in the study of terrorism.
Suicide terrorism as a crime
Aristotle agreed over 2000 years ago that it was legitimate to resist tyranny, yet he
provided no arguments as to which means were legitimate (Aristotle, 1958). Until
today, although we still cannot agree in defining legally what activity can be
characterized as “terrorism”, we can all repeat the famous words “I can’t define it,
but I know when I see it”. 4
Despite any definitional controversy, it is beyond doubt that the threat or use of
murder, injury or destruction, are all crimes, committed to coerce officials, the
government, or other target groups into consenting to the terrorist’s demands. In
particular, the suicide attack is a bloody and extra-violent act of homicide, resulting
in high death tolls and numerous injuries. It is not just the source of tremendous
horror, but above all it is a crime. Yet, few scholars have taken the issue of suicide
terrorism to the fore of the criminological debate (Deflem, 2004) and they are
indeed an exception to the rule of criminology’s little contribution to the study of
this phenomenon. 5
Criminologists define crime with reference to its formal legal definition. In this
perspective, the advantage of criminology over other disciplines is that the
controversial ethical dimension in terrorism’s ideological construction has little
meaning. A suicide attack as homicide, as a method of intentional killing of others,
is legitimately researched in depth overcoming arguments of a “just cause.” While
terrorist organisations usually describe themselves as national liberation
movements, fighters against social, economic and religious oppression, or a
combination of these (Merari, 1993), the truth of their argument has little to do
with their violent act. 6 Some groups undoubtedly do fight for self-determination or
national liberation, but not all resort to terrorism. Some groups are both terrorist
52