UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 16.6 Free with a free account

Evaluating Global and Domestic Responses to Political Crime and Terrorism

Criminology · Chapter 16: Political Crime and TerrorismSection 16.6 · lesson 71 of 91video coming soon

← Cyber Terrorism, Torture as Counter-Terrorism, and Counter-Terrorism Strategies Next lesson: Policy Frameworks and International Cooperation in Counter-Terrorism →

Earn 3 college credits for CriminologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Criminology 150 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access

Enroll in Criminology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Criteria, measurement problems, and three response models compared.

Assess a counter-terrorism measure against five criteria.
Explain why effectiveness is so hard to measure.
Compare the criminal justice, war, and intelligence models.
State what the evidence can and cannot support.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,516 words). Read along, or search it.

Opening Question

Did This Measure Actually Work?

An oversight body has been handed a plain question: did this counter-terrorism measure work? Governments spend enormous effort responding to political violence. How would we know whether those responses work, and whether they are worth what they cost? This lesson gives you the tools to ask that question carefully.

Roadmap

Six Steps Through Evaluating Responses

We start with five criteria for evaluating any counter-terrorism measure. Then we confront the measurement problem, the main reason effectiveness claims are so hard to test. We look at displacement, adaptation, and the surprising relationship between fairness and effectiveness. We compare three response models: criminal justice, war, and intelligence. We examine the emergency powers ratchet and the tools designed to counter it. And we close with an honest statement of what the evidence can and cannot support.

Framework

Five Criteria for Assessing Measures

Any counter-terrorism measure can be assessed against five criteria. The first is effectiveness, meaning whether it achieves its stated objective. The second is proportionality, the fit between the measure and the threat it actually addresses. The third is rights compliance, with applicable constitutional and international legal protections. The fourth is cost, both the financial cost and the administrative burden of running the measure. The fifth is second-order effects, meaning consequences beyond the measure's immediate target. Those include its effects on public trust and on institutional legitimacy. Notice that effectiveness is only one criterion of the five. A measure could achieve its own objective and still fail badly on proportionality, rights, cost, or legitimacy.

Core Problem

Four Parts of the Measurement Problem

Evaluating effectiveness runs into a severe measurement problem, with four parts. First, terrorist attacks are rare events, relative to the populations and time periods studied. Rare events make statistical inference difficult, because there are too few cases for stable estimates. Second, a successful preventive measure produces an attack that never occurs, so prevented incidents cannot be counted directly, only inferred, if at all. Third, there is usually no genuine comparison condition: no equivalent population is left unprotected, so there is nothing to measure the difference against. Fourth, the incentives facing officials discourage honest evaluation. Admitting that a measure had limited effect carries political and institutional costs. That creates steady pressure toward favorable reporting.

Key Concept

Four Obstacles to Defensible Claims

Think of these as four obstacles, standing between a measure and a defensible claim. The first obstacle is rare events, with too few incidents for stable statistics. The second is that prevented incidents cannot be counted, because success is invisible by definition. The third is the missing comparison condition, with no untreated equivalent to compare against. The fourth is perverse incentives, since reporting failure is costly to the officials involved. Any effectiveness claim has to get past all four obstacles to be defensible. Most broad claims about counter-terrorism effectiveness cannot clear them. That does not prove the measures fail. It means we usually cannot tell, and an honest evaluation has to say so.

Quick Check

Spotting the Self-Reported Success Problem

Quick check. An agency's own report concludes that its measure worked, and no outside body reviewed the evidence. Which of the four obstacles does that raise? Pause, and decide. Perverse incentives: officials who run a measure have reasons to report that it worked. Rare events and the missing comparison are different obstacles.

Standing Objections

Displacement, Adaptation, and Perceived Fairness

Counter-terrorism measures also face two standing objections. These are the same objections raised against situational crime prevention, discussed in Subchapter six point one. Displacement means a measure simply shifts activity toward an unprotected target, rather than reducing it overall. Adaptation means those planning to act adjust their approach to a known measure, which over time can erode a measure's effect. A third consideration concerns legitimacy. Research on public cooperation consistently finds that perceived fairness affects whether communities cooperate with a security measure. That holds independently of the measure's formal legal validity. This supports a practical argument: a measure perceived as unfair can undermine the very cooperation its own effectiveness may depend on. So rights compliance and effectiveness are not simply in tension, and in practice they can align.

Definitions

Criminal Justice, War, and Intelligence Models

Three broad frameworks describe how states have organized their overall response. The criminal justice model treats terrorism as a crime, like any other serious offense. It is investigated and prosecuted within ordinary legal process. The war model treats terrorism as armed conflict. It invokes the law of armed conflict and military authority, rather than ordinary criminal process. The intelligence model emphasizes disruption, through intelligence collection and action. It often does not aim at criminal prosecution at all. These are not pure types, and real responses rarely fit just one of them. Different states, and the same state at different times, have leaned toward different combinations of all three.

Comparison

Powers, Safeguards, and Failures Side by Side

Here we compare the three models side by side. The criminal justice model claims standard law enforcement and prosecutorial power, safeguarded by full constitutional criminal procedure. Its characteristic failure is that it may be too slow to prevent an imminent, specific threat. The war model claims military and law-of-armed-conflict authority, safeguarded by international humanitarian law standards. Its characteristic failure is extending military authority into contexts that resemble ordinary policing, weakening applicable protections. The intelligence model claims intelligence collection and covert action authority. Its safeguard is the set of oversight layers described in Subchapter sixteen point two. Its characteristic failure is limited transparency and accountability, because so much of its oversight depends on voluntary disclosure.

Levels of Government

International Cooperation and Local Policing Roles

Responses to political violence operate at more than one level of government. Internationally, counter-terrorism increasingly depends on cross-border cooperation mechanisms. Subchapter sixteen point seven, which closes this chapter, develops them fully. Within the United States, responsibility divides between federal and state authority, as Subchapter sixteen point four established. Local law enforcement occupies a distinctive position in that structure. Local officers are often the first responders to an incident. Yet they are rarely the lead agency for the broader counter-terrorism response. And they depend on good community relations for the reporting that early detection often requires. That dependence links back to the community-police relations discussed in Subchapter ten point seven.

Pattern

The Emergency Powers Ratchet

The emergency powers ratchet describes a pattern we have now met several times. Measures adopted as temporary responses to an urgent threat persist well beyond the circumstances that justified them. Why? Institutions rarely give up authority voluntarily, once it has been granted. Two tools are designed to counter this pattern.

Counter Tools

Sunset Provisions and Periodic Review

A sunset provision makes an authority expire automatically, unless it is affirmatively renewed. Periodic review mechanisms schedule a reassessment of whether the authority is still needed. But both tools share a weakness that is easy to overlook. Their effectiveness depends on whether renewal review involves genuine scrutiny. If renewal becomes a largely automatic formality, the ratchet keeps turning.

Honest Conclusion

Claims Outrun the Evidence

Given the measurement problem, this lesson states a plain conclusion: confident claims about counter-terrorism effectiveness outrun the evidence more than in most areas of criminology. What can honestly be said is limited to documented process outcomes. Those include prosecutions secured, and specific plots disrupted, where evidence of the plot's maturity is independently verifiable. What cannot honestly be said is a reliable overall effectiveness rate for any broad strategy. There is simply no genuine comparison condition, no untreated population, to support one.

Better Design

What a Well-Designed Evaluation Requires

So what would a well-designed evaluation require? At minimum, a clearly specified outcome, measured consistently over time. It needs some form of comparison, even an imperfect one, such as a similar jurisdiction without the measure. It needs transparent reporting, independent of the administering agency, and honest acknowledgment of what the design cannot determine.

Practice

Assigning Measures to Response Models

Let's assign some example measures to the three response models. Prosecuting a suspect in ordinary federal court, under standard criminal procedure, is the criminal justice model. So is gathering evidence for a domestic criminal trial, and referring a case to ordinary state criminal court. A military operation under the law of armed conflict belongs to the war model. Trial before a military commission, and detention under military authority without criminal charge, belong there too. Disrupting a plot through covert action with no criminal charge is the intelligence model. So is authorizing surveillance for intelligence collection rather than prosecution. Notice how one government can use all three models at once, even in a single case.

Applying Evidence

Matching Evidence to Effectiveness Claims

Now ask what evidence would actually support each effectiveness claim. For expanded surveillance, it would be specific disrupted plots, independently verified as mature. For protective security, it would be comparison with similar unprotected targets, plus a check for displacement. For a community prevention program, it would be a consistent outcome over time, measured against a comparison jurisdiction. For military action against leadership, it would be longer-term capacity trends, net of renewed recruitment.

Quick Check

Verifying a Prevented Attacks Claim

Now work backward: a government claims a measure prevented a specific number of attacks. Can that claim be verified? Pause, and decide. That claim cannot be independently verified, because prevented incidents are unobservable, and there is no comparison condition to measure against.

Back to Opening

The Oversight Body's Limited Claims

Our oversight body from the opening faces the same counterfactual problem, so its defensible claims are limited to documented process outcomes the evidence actually supports.

Key Takeaways

Criteria, Obstacles, Models, and Ratchet Tools

Let's pull it together. Five criteria apply, and effectiveness is only one of them. Four obstacles make broad effectiveness claims hard to defend. Each response model has a safeguard and a characteristic failure. And sunset clauses and review counter the ratchet, if scrutiny is genuine.

About Criminology at UPI Study

Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Criminology with UPI Study

Understand crime and justiceCriminology explains why crime happens, how it is measured and how the justice system responds. It is a core course for criminal justice, sociology, psychology, law and policing degrees.

Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.

Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.

Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.

Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.

130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner

University of the PeopleSigned partner

Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner

Strayer UniversitySigned partner

Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner

Indiana TechSigned partner

Penn StateWorks with NCCRS

Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS

SUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Evaluating Global and Domestic Responses to Political Crime and Terrorism

What are the five criteria for evaluating a counter-terrorism measure?

The five criteria are effectiveness, proportionality, rights compliance, cost, and second-order effects. Effectiveness asks whether the measure meets its stated objective. Proportionality asks whether it fits the actual threat. Rights compliance looks at constitutional and international protections. Cost covers money and administrative burden. Second-order effects include public trust and institutional legitimacy. A measure can succeed on effectiveness and still fail on the others.

Why is it so hard to measure whether counter-terrorism policies work?

Four problems make it hard. Attacks are rare, so there are too few cases for stable statistics. Prevented attacks never happen, so they cannot be counted directly. There is usually no comparison group left unprotected. Officials also face incentives to report favorable results, since admitting limited effect is costly. Most broad effectiveness claims cannot clear all four obstacles, so we usually cannot tell whether a measure works.

What is the difference between the criminal justice, war, and intelligence models of counter-terrorism?

The models differ in how they define terrorism and which authority they use. The criminal justice model treats it as crime, handled through ordinary investigation and prosecution. The war model treats it as armed conflict under military authority and the law of armed conflict. The intelligence model stresses disruption through collection and covert action, often without prosecution. Real governments mix all three, sometimes in one case.

Can a government prove that a counter-terrorism measure prevented a certain number of attacks?

No, a claim that a measure prevented a specific number of attacks cannot be independently verified. Prevented incidents are unobservable, so they can only be inferred, and there is no comparison population to measure against. Self-reported claims also raise the perverse-incentives problem. The evidence can honestly support documented process outcomes, such as prosecutions secured or specific plots disrupted, when the plot's maturity is independently verifiable.

About the Criminology course

How many college credits is Criminology?

Criminology (Criminology 150) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

How much does Criminology cost and what is included?

$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 91 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.

Which universities accept UPI Study credits?

UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.

How long does Criminology take?

It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 91 lessons total about 4 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.

How are the exams done?

Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.

How do my credits reach my college?

When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.

91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Criminology →Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →

Criminology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →