全球智库信息集成服务系统

Knowledge of the perpetrator's motivation is key in enabling classification

• Lack of clarity around motivation could result in stakeholders implying a motive, which may involve biases.

Recognition of an ideology behind an act of violence can affect classification

• Recognising an idea or movement as an ideology can enable prosecution under TACT 2000.

Social media and public perception can affect classification

• SMEs cautioned against excessive reliance on social media in classifying acts of violence, and highlighted potential issues connected to classification and public perception.

Mental health issues can complicate classification

• There was uncertainty as to how mental health affects the classification of acts of violence, as well as whether or not it should.

Defining an act as terrorism remains complex and, in some cases, unclear

• SMEs noted that over-classification of violence as terrorism can, on the one hand, trivialise this type of act; on the other hand, it can have a wider societal impact.

Applications of hate crime can be unclear

• The fact that gender is not included as a protected characteristic in the hate crime definition was not common knowledge. In addition, SMEs questioned whether the definition would apply to crimes towards the perpetrator's 'in-group'.

Small differences were identified between how different SMEs approached and perceived the case studies

• Small differences were identified between how different SMEs approached and perceived the case studies

Classifying acts of violence, particularly terrorism, is an ongoing challenge. There are risks to society as a whole if a specific act has been misclassified. For example, this can distort statistics and affect the understanding of, as well as the risks associated with, a phenomenon. In addition, misclassification can lead to the release of offenders who could still be of harm to others. In this context, RAND Europe was commissioned to undertake a study on how different acts of violence are classified by subject matter experts (SMEs).

The study was based on the inputs of 25 SMEs from a range of backgrounds (government/policy, practitioners, and academia/research) and fields (e.g. counter-terrorism, legal, policing, etc.). The SMEs first responded to a questionnaire to classify 12 case studies displaying acts of violence, then participated in a two-hour workshop, in which four of the case studies and their classification were discussed in more detail.

The findings demonstrate the ongoing difficulties in classifying acts of violence. Defining such acts is not done in isolation, but comprises many different facets of the crime, including the perpetrator's motivation, the significance of their online presence, any known or emerging mental health issues, and the classifier's own knowledge, experience, and possibly any resulting biases. The misclassification of complex crimes, especially those with probable or verified connections to terrorism, bring significant risks. Based on the findings, the study team offers several recommendations for policymakers.

• Skip to page content

Objective Analysis. Effective Solutions.