| Anti-terrorism legislation shows a tension between the social/political discourse, in which collective security occupies centre stage, and the (criminal) legal discourse, where individual legal protection is considered to have the highest value. The prevailing impression of criminal justice scholars is that typical values of criminal law are made subordinate to risk control. This research focuses on a comparison of the two discourses in order to establish (a) on which points there is agreement or agreement can be reached, (b) on which points no agreement is possible, so that the legislator must make choices in this respect, (c) how ? and in which terms ? he should substantiate such choices so that they fit in with the present-day culture of control. |
