The Public’s Perception of Crime and Terrorism

The recent bombings in London and Egypt proved once again that terrorism is an integral part of our political, social and economic reali ty in the 21 st Century. Terrorism is now a regular headline on our evening news along side murders, kidnappings, ro bberies and the like.

Plug the word “Terrorism” into a Yahoo search and you will bring up 52,900,000 results. In comparison, “Fraud” comes second with 43,200,000 results, “Murder” comes in third with 42,100,000 results and “Theft” brings a mere 33,600,000. This is but one illustration of how terrorism surpasses all other criminal activi ty as far as the public interest is concerned.

But is terrorism really like any other criminal activi ty?

The answer to this question lies not in our courts or with our government but with us, the people. How do we view Terrorism as opposed to Crime? Unlike other crimes, terrorism is intolerable to the public. As ci tizens of free and democratic societies, we have learned to accept crime as an endurable reality with which the criminal justice system deals. However, when it comes to terrorism, the public cannot and will not accept it - neither as a reality nor as endurable. Public sentiment demands that terrorism be PreventED and not simply that the “terrorists will be brought to justice” – prosecuting terrorists after their attacks amounts to too little, too late.

So how do we achieve prevention?

The first step must be a shift in the way we think. We must change our cognitive process from risk-based to threat-based. Risk-based thinking is founded on historical statistics or facts that already have happened. Therefore if nothing happens in our immediate environment, this means to us that we are not at risk. Your car insurance premium for instance, is based on data compiled from accidents that occurred in the past and based on that, plus your age, sex, place of residence, etc., you are quantified into a risk level. Hypothetically, if there were no car accidents in the State of California, The risk of a Californian to be involved in one is approaching zero.

T hreat-based thinking is formed by realizing that just because a particular event has not yet occurred, this does not mean it will not happen in the future. We must realize that terrorism is around us. Learn how terrorists operate and we will be able to identify how they stand out of the norm. Threat-based thinking might seem counterintuitive to human behavior. After all, if nothing happens why should one assume that something could happen? In fact, threat-based thinking is very much an intuitive human trait.

Let me illustrate my point. Imagine that your loving and faithful spouse comes home two hours late from work, and that you detect a scent of a perfume/cologne coming from him/her that is outside of the norm. What would be your immediate assumption? This is obvious… you suspect (be honest: even under the best circumstances the possibili ty would occur to you) your spouse is cheating. This scenario is familiar to all of us, if not through actual, unfortunate experience then via book, soap opera or the movies. In the securi ty field, this analytical process is called “threat assessment” – the abili ty to derive an Aggressor’s Method of Operation (in this case, cheating) from Suspicion Indicators (coming home late from work and smelling suspicious).

Your assumption that cheating is taking place can be absolutely wrong. In fact, it could be that your spouse has gone shopping in order to get you a perfume/cologne for your upcoming birthday. This story legitimizes being late and smelling suspicious. What we learn from this example is that many times suspicion indicators can be misleading. In order for us to look for the real cheater we have to try and refute the indictors that we found. If refutation of suspicion indicators is possible, this means that the person is not guil ty of cheating or in other words, that there is no threat apparent in this situation.

So…can we identify a terrorist the same way we identify a cheating spouse?

Yes we can! Just as we realize infideli ty’s potential to hit us at any time, we must condition ourselves to understand and internalize the fact that potentially, a terrorist threat always looms. And instead of panicking, we must be aware of the potential for threat to occur in our environment and learn how to identify the preliminary indicators of a possible terrorist attack in the making. This skill and abili ty can be nominally acquired by trying to walk in the terrorist shoes and by simulating the modus operandi of the aggressor.

Threat-based thinking does not translate to panicking. The fact that you accept that a train can be blown up in a terrorist attack should not prevent you from riding the train every day to and from work. Threat-based perception should not change the way we conduct our lives. Similarly, your acceptance of the fact that married couples sometimes cheat on each other should not stop you from getting married.

What must change is our perception of and attention to our environment. That is critical. We cannot remain indifferent to events, conditions, situations and people around us. Just as in cheating, terrorism is becoming a global human experience that while intolerable and harsh, it can effect and touch anyone of us. To prevent it, we must actively care about it and make terrorism our business!!!

Sarah Montgomery & Amotz Brandes

Chameleon Associates LLC

<< Return to Newsletters | Print this page