I have always wondered why the people who have been charged with carrying out & contributing to acts of terrorism have not been charged with treason, the ones that are still alive obviously not suicide bombers. Having read the definition of treason i don't understand how what they're doing is not treason. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason Anyone have a better understanding on this as i don't know all the legal ins and outs
I'm sure it would be possible. The reason they are not charged with that offence is is political. The government have introduced terrorism laws and so the CPS use these to prosecute.
it is a policy decsion. If you look from a prosecutors perspective there is no advantage in using the old treason laws.
From that definition I would think it's more difficult to prove treason than to prove terrorism. So if the maximum sentence for both is life imprisonment then where's the benefit of prosecuting under something that may be more difficult to prove. You'd have to prove that the intent was an overthrown of Government or was an act against the State.
'Disloyalty or treachery against the state or government' i would have thought murdering the queens subjects would be covered by this. Reading through the treason charge i have only just found out that our Labour goverment abolished hanging for treason in 1998 under the human rights act. That was why i was questioning why the terrorists weren't being charged with it as i thought hanging for treason was still in place. Death would not be a deterrent though as they do not place much value on human life including their own as they believe so strongly in where they are going to after death
I'm not saying I wouldn't class it as treason, I just think that the burden of proof would be greater.
you really need to look at the statute definition, not the dictionary one, it used to be classed as treason if you attempted (or did) to murder the queen/ king or set fire to her/ his majestys dockyards...
