Criminal Background
Criminal Background
In 2006, McGarrell, Freilich, & Chermak (2007) discussed a study that analysed over 60 terrorist incidents ‘pre-incident indicators. The study scrutinised the incident histories, including the planning phases looking to establish if there had been intelligence gathering opportunities. They concluded; ‘The study provides support for the conclusion that law enforcement agencies can prevent a terrorist attack if able to access the right types of data and intelligence in [a] timely manner’. There is a relevance to ILP and FORINT here as the study asserted:
Terrorist Incidents have planning and equipping phase; this phase does not occur impulsively or in isolation. The analysis established that ‘on average, approximately 2 to 3 months elapse between planning and commission.’
Terrorists and terrorist groups are prone to have been involved in crime and are likely to be ‘chronic offenders’ known to police.
Nearly 50% of the terrorists carried out the planning and preparation of the attack within 30 miles of where they lived.
During the investigations following the attacks in Paris and Brussels, it was revealed that forensic opportunities were exploited from ‘traces left at the scene of the crimes, including cellular phones and DNA’ (Cusson, 2018). This intelligence was used proactively in this case as police identified other persons, with criminal records, on the periphery of the attacks. This suggests; if police are working intelligently and effectively and harvesting evidence from all crimes, there will be intelligence available on who is most likely to commit terrorist offences. The challenge for the police is to analyse the intelligence and apply the relevant intelligence-led problem-solving to identify the suspects and threats before an incident occurs.
Both these studies support the theory that a significant proportion of terrorists operating in Europe have a criminal background and are known to police. After the recent terror attacks in Europe, a former Belgium Defence minister and counterterrorism expert, François Heisbourg, noted; ‘every time there is an attack, we discover that the perpetrators were known to the authorities’ Cusson (2018). also argues that terrorists often have criminal behaviours and criminal records; criminologists would recognise the behaviours as those of ‘common criminals'. Terrorists often commit a crime in several different categories during their ‘criminal careers' where they may have seen themselves as above the law. What places terrorists apart from the ‘common criminals’ is the absence of inhibition when the time comes to kill.