Respond to the following discussions from classmates (X6) with approximately 125 words or more each. Include a reference to each response if possible. Be thoughtful and insightful and it must demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

1. Benjamin Smith was a member of the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC), a white supremacist group founded in 1973. He was a close friend of Matthew Hale, who ultimately became Supreme Leader of the group who was unable to never admitted to the Bar Association because of his supremacist views.

I believe that through the rhetoric spewed by the upper echelon of the WCOTC, particularly a close friend, Smith felt compelled to "wipe out the tormentors" (FBI, 1999). By doing so, he was ensuring his and his peoples own survival, reaffirming that whites were the supreme act of creation and guaranteeing all a place for further divine placement. Although the timeframe of Smiths involvement with the WCOTC was not clear, I feel this would be a type of socialization and played a large part in his actions.

I do feel however, that a mental disorder was also a factor. Smith's reign of terror lasted for 3 days and spanned 4 different communities in the Chicago Illinois area. The fact that after the initial attack was over, additional targets were selected and attacked at opportune times which shows complete lack of remorse which detaches that human element.

2. While doing some of my own research on this topic I found this interesting statement:
Blaming "mental illness" is a cop-out -- and one that lets us avoid talking about race, guns, hatred and terrorism
What are your thoughts?

3. I am using the case "Prosecuting the Unabomber" for this discussion. The person who was tried in this case is named Theodore "Ted" Kaczynski. According to the article referencing the case, Ted was responsible for creating package bombs that were responsible for three deaths and several injuries over the span of 20 years.

Ted was a scientist who became very antisocial, and eventually, he retreated from civilization. If I were to argue, I would say that there are several issues that could have led him to a life of isolation and hate. It could have stemmed from his childhood, or maybe it was the dissatisfaction with his employment. In 1995, he actually extorted the New York Times and Washington Post to publish his complaints about the technology of the current times. He may have felt underappreciated because no one would listen to his ideas. After all, he was a scientist.

Ted wanted to defend himself, but the judge would not allow it without a psyche evaluation. The psychiatrist concluded Ted was a paranoid schizophrenic, but I believe he started creating the bombs because he was being undermined at work and felt like he would make people appreciate his genius one way or another. That is what I would conclude IF I were to argue this case. One thing is for sure, he was not motivated by social peer pressure or radicalization. He acted on his own, and he even confessed that during his hearing.

4. Mostly, prosecutors and the Law enforcement officers face difficulty in charging cases, especially the ones concerning the mass killing incidents. During such conflictions, the law breakers might be in their official duties thus, forced to commit the killings. This scenario therefore, covers the 5th November 2009 case Major Nidal Hasan which saw the death of 13 soldiers and others above 30 heavily wounded in line of duty.

In the occurrence of mass killings, one, a prosecutor could define whether brutality is a conventional crime or a terrorist activity that needs to be heavily charged (Novakoff, 2015). For instance, the scenario of Major Nidal Hasan was non-conventional that was an organized crime in which white collar fighters staged by the government were on the mission.

Therefore, Major Nidal could not be charged as a criminal for killing was categorized under occupational crime which was not intended. Conversely, terrorist activities that include murder, rape, assault, robbery, theft and burglary ought to be charged for they are known crimes and offenses against them may be regarded as a sign of ignorance.

As realized, prosecutors may thus find it difficult to decide on conventional offenses for they do not occur deliberately. Similarly, the terror activities may be spared when they are done by professionals in line of duty (Mitsilegas et al. 2015).

Several examples of such offenses involve country defense forces on the mission to fight the rebels in which civilians may be killed. Related cases will therefore be treated as accidental even if wrong. Nonetheless, the mass killings can be done in the mission when country soldiers fight the terrorists into their hidden civilian hoods where in the process mass killings occur.

5. Differentiating Acts of Terrorism from Ordinary Murder

Prosecutors usually seek to understand the motive that drove an individual to commit mass murder before deciding the charges to press against them in court. By and large as Bjelopera (2013) reckoned, the case ought to be treated as a terrorist act if a higher cause or ideology above and beyond profit-making informed the perpetrator's deeds.

Committers of ordinary murder, on the contrary, are driven by selfish motives of profiting from crimes, hence their targeting of easy and opportunistic prey. Unless the prosecutor fully comprehends the cause that led the killer to commit mass murder, they may end up pressing the wrong or even false charges against them.

A typical example would be the prosecutor pressing lesser charges of murder on a suspect when they should have, in fact, been charged with terrorism and vice-versa. Unfortunately, though, this intention that plays a critical role in distinguishing the two cases is usually hidden, and the prosecutor has to carry out a root-cause analysis to establish it before deciding on what to charge them with.

It is often difficult to classify a crime as ordinary when it is viewed from the scope of a hate crime. Hate crimes tend to resemble acts of terrorism as both are motivated by ideologies, save that the former crimes entail the direction of personal malice at specific individuals or groups, whereas the latter involves broader ideological motivations.

This thin line between the two crimes as Ronczkowski (2012) pointed out makes it extremely hard for the prosecutor to decide on whether they should charge a suspect with conventional murder or terrorism when they are involved in mass murder.

6. As a prosecutor, it would be difficult to decide mass murderers with an act of terrorism or conventional murder charges because crime involves many categories and both fit into them. According to our module notes, "Not all criminals are terrorists, but all terrorists are generally considered criminals."

Mullins (2009) explained studied the parallels between crime and terrorism and revealed how there are significant similarities between terrorists, organized, and low-level criminals in activities, systems of social influence, and organization. Because of these similarities, it is hard to distinguish which actions specifically constitutes terrorism or crime.

Another problem is with the similar motives in hate crime and terrorism. As explained in the previous module, hate crimes differ from terrorism such that they are unlawful acts of personal malice that target individuals (Bjelopera, 2013).

This includes crimes against someone because of the victim's race, gender, color, religion, disability, and other social aspects. However, it is challenging to compare it with terrorism because, like acts of terrorism, hate crimes can involve or be motivated by ideological issues (Bjelopera, 2013).

The key here would be the intent. Although some terrorist movements may be considered hate crimes, not all hate crimes can be associated with terrorist organizations because an individual may be unaffiliated with any group but still commit a hate crime based on their prejudices against the victim.