The sentences, some of them already further extended, of a number of militant Islamists convicted of terrorist conspiracy are about to expire.
But releasing unreformed or “non-“deradicalised” jihadis back into the community may pose risks. Indefinitely continuing incarceration after a felon has served his time seems bad in principle. But where the risk is a serious one, can it be taken?
We — our country, our political leaders and our judiciaries — now face a fateful question: what are we to do about, and with, still imprisoned convicted jihadis and other violent Islamist militants whose long sentences are now about to expire? (Paul Maley, “Cops’ legal battle to keep terrorists locked up”, The Australian, February 12, 2020 and Mark Schliebs, “Abdul Nacer Benbrika: A terrorist of influence”, The Australian, “Inquirer”, February 12 2020).
Do we treat them in the same way as other, more routine felons and simply say that they have done their time and so should be released back into the community?
To do that seems on basic fairness grounds “the right thing to do”. But it involves a risk. A substantial risk. Is it a risk that we can afford to take? Or is the Australian national community entitled to decide that these are not ordinary wrongdoers, like most who are convicted of more routine felonies, and so should be treated in some special way, appropriate to the appalling nature of their past offences and perhaps still continuing politico-religious commitments? And if we are to take that latter course, on what grounds may we adopt and justify such an extraordinary course of action?
A lifelong radical and principled civil libertarian, I have no hesitation in concluding, and urging others, that we must not gamble on the premature release of convicted jihadis.
Read the article by Clive Kessler, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales on John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations.