Anti-terrorism laws in Jordon, the United States of America and Islamic law: a comparative study

Abstract

The crime of terrorism is becoming increasingly prevalent and many criminal justice systems have introduced legislation in order to address the prosecution of perpetrators who commit such crimes. This research focuses on the existing anti-terrorism legislation in the Jordanian, American, and Islamic Legal Systems, discuss the obstacles confronting efforts to define terrorism, and by examining and comparing the various attempts to address the crime of terrorism, including the legal guarantees provided to those who are suspects or accused of terrorist crimes in the investigation, pretrial and trial stage, questions the sufficiency of the substantive criminal rules to combat the crime of terrorism. By comparing the three legal systems, a number of inconsistencies are highlighted which will help clarify the differences between political crimes, crimes against state security and other crimes as identified in the three legal systems studied, in order to arrive at a comprehensive definition of the crime of terrorism and recommendations for improving the criminal procedures which should be followed by law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of crimes of terrorism in the competent courts in the Legal Systems studied.