Deterrent Effects of Legal Sanctions on Eco-Terrorist Attacks

1. Deterrent Effects of Legal Sanctions on Eco-Terrorist Attacks Dr. Sue-Ming Yang National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan & Yi-Yuan Su National Chung Hsin University, Taiwan Hokkaido University, Japan

2. Background Information • Since the late 90s, eco-terrorist incidents have increased dramatically • Eco-terrorism has resulted in huge monetary losses • For example, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) has caused an estimated $100 million in damage (from 1995-2005). • As such, the FBI considers it to be the number one domestic terrorist threat in the U.S. • To respond to the threats, many countermeasures have been proposed • Legal sanctions • Law enforcement operations

3. The Goals of this Study • Understand the patterns and characteristics of eco-terrorism in the United States, Canada, and Japan • Identify key legislations that have been designed to prevent eco-terrorist cases across the three countries • Examine the deterrent effects of each legal sanction and estimate the change in risk of new attacks after the enactment of new sanctions

4. Eco-terrorism Trends (1970-2010)

5. Target Types

6. Research Questions • What are the patterns of eco-terrorist attacks across the three countries? • What type of legal sanctions have been used to attempt to prevent eco-terrorist attacks? • Do legal sanctions deter eco-terrorist attacks? • What type of legislation works to prevent future attacks?

7. Data and Methods • We included 1,127 terrorist/criminal incidents committed by the 74 eco-groups across the three countries from 1970 to 2012 • Global Terrorism Database (GTD) • Eco-incident Database (EID) • A thorough search of legal cases was done to identify eligible legal sanctions • Key legislations in each country were selected for quantitative analysis • Interrupted Time Series analysis and Series Hazard Modeling were used to examine the deterrent effects of the selected legal sanctions

8. Eco-Terrorism in the U.S.

10. Key Countermeasures in the U.S. • Legislation • The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (ADA 1988) • United States v. John P. Blount • The Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 (AEPA) • The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006 (AETA) • The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 • FBI’s “Operation Backfire” (1998-2008) • Targeting the “Family” (the organized group of the ELF and the ALF)

11. Eco-Terrorism in Canada and Japan

15. Countermeasures in Canada and in Japan • Canada • The Canada Criminal Code of 1985 • The Health of Animal Act of 1990, sec. 64, par. (1) • The Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994 • The USA and Barbarash (2002) • Japan • Specific Measure Act on Countermeasure of Terrorism of 2001

16. Examining the Deterrent Effects of Corresponding Legislation

18. Effects of Legislation in the U.S.

19. Results of Series Hazard Model on U.S. Attacks

20. The effects of Operation Backfire

21. Effects of Legislation Along the U.S.—Canada Border

22. Conclusion • Eco-terrorism is unique in many regards • Legislation with more comprehensive scope of protection on subject lead to successful deterrent effects on eco-terrorism • Both AETA and the USA PATRIOT reduce the number of subsequent eco-attacks and the AETA further reduces the risk of new attacks • However, courts are more likely to use general criminal codes than special laws to handle eco-terrorism

23. Suggestions for the Future • Eco-terrorism is culture and society specific. No blanket prevention policy could cover issues across different countries • Regulations focusing on protections of animals used for experimentation are needed in the future • Importance to study spatial displacement of eco-terrorist activities after interventions like the Operation Backfire

24. Deterrent Effects of Legal Sanctions on Eco-Terrorist Attacks Dr. Sue-Ming Yang National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan & Yi-Yuan Su National Chung Hsin University, Taiwan Hokkaido University, Japan