Non-political Crimes Research Articles

Gil v. Canada (Re Gil and Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Aliens — Refugees — Refugee status — United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 — Interpretation and application of Article 1F(b) — Exception in event of “serious non-political crime” — Bombing of business premises of supporters of present government — Killing and injuring of innocent bystanders — Whether constituting serious non-political crime — Incidence test — Whether crimes being executed in context of violent 147opposition to government — Whether real nexus between crime and political objective — Whether means being employed proportionate to political objective pursued — The law of Canada

T v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

656Aliens — Refugees — Criteria for grant of asylum — Refusal on ground of involvement in “serious non-political crimes” — Applicant claiming that threat to life or freedom because of political opinions if returned to Algeria — Applicant a member of illegal organization carrying out acts of violence to promote political objectives in Algeria — Admission by applicant of involvement in incidents leading to deaths — Whether requirement that gravity of offences be weighed against threat to life and freedom of applicant — Political nature of crimes — Whether nature of offence disproportionate to political objective — Requirement of causal link between offence and political aim — Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Sections 1F and 33 — The law of England

Right of Asylum: A Change of Direction

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Political crime and repression in Europe and America: A review essay

In comparison to the plethora of research on expressive deviance (e.g., sexual deviance, drug use) and non-political instrumental crime (e.g., property crime, personal crime), the academic disciplines of criminology and the sociology of deviance have given curiously little attention to the important phenomena of political crime and state repression [ 1]. Systematic examinations of political crime, like the two under review here, are therefore more than welcome. The relatively small body of previous literature treating political crime has been plagued by a number of serious conceptual difficulties. One especially glaring problem is the lack of common agreement on the very definition of political crime. Political crime tends to be conceptualized either too broadly or too narrowly. Some maintain that all crime is essentially political because it involves the potentiality of state repression or because it is a conscious or unconscious response to an oppressive social system. In similar fashion, it is claimed that all prisoners are in the final analysis political prisoners. Another all-embracing depiction sees political crime as co-extensive with crimes of domination. In this vein, one recent writer designates rape and forced prostitution as political crimes since they entail domination [2]. Other formulations circumscribe political crime too narrowly. The manner in which political crime is presented may be biased against offenders either on the left or right. It is problematic, for instance, whether Klan and neoNazi terrorism fits with the general claim that the political offender's "acts reveal a concern for human happiness and welfare" [3]. While political criminals act out of a concern for some "higher purpose" than mere self-interest, the content of those transcendent motivations exhibits considerable variation across different groups. Other incomplete treatments of political crime must likewise be rejected. Since political crime is excluded from the lexicon of the law in some nations (England, America), except for extradition law,