Applying Criminological Theories to Cyber Crime

Applying Criminological Theories to Cyber CrimeCyber execrationThe cyberspace is perhaps todays most influential technological invention and continues to change daily life for virtually every adept on Earth. Millions of populate ar plugged into cyberspace, and thousands to a greater extent enter the online world every day. Not further has the Internet revolutionized the way we interact with others and remove, it has forever changed the way we live. As internet and computer technologies continue to thrive criminals acquire found ways to utilisation these technologies as a tool for their pervert acts. Cyberoffenses argon a novel breed of offensive activity that are perpetrated using computers, or are differently related to them. Cyber discourtesy is different and more(prenominal) heinous than conventional crime in that the crime is committed by dint of an electronic medium which take ins it ticklish to track and identify the criminal. The most common types of cybercr ime admit cyber fraud, defamation, hacking, bullying, and phishing. Within the palm of criminology, a number of theories exist that attempt to relieve why almost mint prosecute in deviant behavior, while others abstain from it. Although, these theories were primarily meant to explain crimes committed in the real world, they enkindle lock be utilise to cybercrime. These theories include affectionate learning possibleness, meek continence surmisal, worldwide test system, frustration aggression dead reckoning, routine activity surmisal, and situational crime prevention system. This paper will analyze aspects of the above theories, for the purpose of compreh final stage which best explains the motion of cybercrime.Akers hearty learning conjecture is a general theory of crime and has been used to explain a diverse begin of criminal demeanours. This work embodies within it four fundamental premises that include differential association, definitions, different ial respect and imitation (Burruss et al., 2012). Social learning theory is based on the idea that case-by-cases develop motivations and skills to commit crime by the association with or exposure to others who are involved in crime (i.e., associating with deviant peers). Akerss proposed that this exposure to deviant behavior provided idiosyncratics with definitions that are seen as either approving of or neutralizing the behaviour. These definitions become rationalizations for criminals when committing a crime. Differential championshiping refers to the rewards that are associated with a tellicular criminal behavior. This criminal behavior is to begin with learned through the process of imitation, which occurs when unmarrieds learn actions and behavior by ceremonial occasion and listening to others. So, when an individual commits a crime, he or she is mimicking the actions that they have seen others engage in (Burruss et al., 2012). In regards to cybercrime, look for has found that social learning theory sens explain the development and ongoing issue of software piracy. In their hit the books of software piracy, Burruss et al, found that individuals who associate with software piracy peers learn and subsequently accept the deviant conduct. Software piracy requires a real degree of skills and knowledge to find and deviant peers to originally learn these skills from. Furthermore, the deviant individuals rationalize their criminal behavior and help in the fostering of a network that connects and teaches other individuals these rationalizations and behavior. The study also suggested that individuals are more plausibly to engage in software piracy when they see others experiences imperative reinforcement for their participation (Burruss et al., 2012). Not only does social control theory explain for software piracy, elements of this theory can be attri aloneed in other cybercrimes. For display case in any crime, the rationalizations and skills must be learned and behavior is built through the association and observation of others. Thus, the main idea behind social learning theory is that we become who we are based on our milieu and this explanation can be used to explain cybercrime.While social learning theory emphasizes the importance of external actors that influence criminal involvement, misfortunate ownership theory posits that wiped out(p) abstinence is a key factor underlying criminality. This theory was originally developed by criminologists Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi. They proposed that their self-discipline theory can explain all types of crimes, all the time (Burruss et al., 2012). Individuals with low pigheadedness were characterized with being assay of exposure taking, short-sighted, impulsive and prefer simple and easy tasks. These characteristics preclude an individuals ability to accurately calculate the consequences of deviance. fit in to this theory, crime is seen as a means of obtain ing immediate gratification, and the ability to clasp much(prenominal) short-term proclivitys is cogitate to self-control. As much(prenominal), those with a appositeness for criminal involvement are impression to lose sufficient self-control. Also, people with low self-control act impulsively- without oft thought and based on what they are feeling at the moment. This makes them risk takers as they do not consider the consequences of their actions. Finally, low self-control people are focus oned on themselves and lack empathy towards others (Burruss et al., 2012). According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, low self-control originates in early socialization when parents are ineffective in their parenting. in that locationfore, neglecting and uncaring parents are probable to fail to socialize their child to properly delay gratification, care about the feelings of others, and restrain their impulses. As a topic, children with low levels of self-control end up being more prone t o crime, and their criminal propensity continues into later life. The characteristics of low self-control can be applied to more or less simple forms of cybercrime, including software piracy. In their study, Burruss et al , stated that levels of low self-control are directly related to the act of software piracy. For instance, an individual is in all likeliness to perform software piracy because they are impulsive and unable to reside to purchase a copy of the software. These individuals are not promising to be empathetic to the copyright holder and neglect any responsibility. Further, these individuals are likely to be attracted to the thrill and ease of engaging in software piracy. The study also found that low self-control does have an effect on software piracy and that social learning theory measures (i.e., associating with deviant peers and positive attitudes toward software piracy) condition this effect. Thus, from the characteristics of low self-control, those with low l evels of self-control are likely to participate in deviant behavior two on and offline because of their desire of immediate gratification.Robert Ag radicals general strain theory proposes that strain leads to forbid emotions, which may lead to a number of outcomes, including delinquency. The specific strains discussed in the theory include the failure to gain positively cherished goals (e.g., money), the removal of positively valued stimuli (e.g., loss of a valued possession), and the presentation of opposely valued stimuli (e.g., physical abuse) (Patchin Hinduja, 2011). The graduation strain looks at the gap between the expectations of the individual and what they actually achieve, which leads to disappointment and resentment. The second type of strain is caused when a positively valued stimulus is removed and the result is delinquency. This criminal behavior may present itself as an attempt to ease or re repoint the stimuli. The final examination type of strain occurs wh en confronted with negative stimuli. This may cause delinquency as a means to terminate or avoid the negative stimuli (Patchin Hinduja, 2011). According to Agnew, strain does not directly cause crime but quite an promotes negative emotions like aggression and frustration. This is directly in conjunction with the frustration-aggression hypothesis by Yale university psychologists. They believed that anger comes before frustration, and frustration can manifest into both aggressive and non-aggressive behavior (Runions, 2013). In turn, these negative emotions necessitate coping responses as a way to relieve internal pressure. Coping via illegal behaviour and violence may be especially true for adolescents because of their limited resources and inability to escape frustrating environments. In their article, Patchin Hinduja, concluded that general strain theory can be used to explain illegal behavior such as cyber bullying among youthfulness.Cyber bullying is a serious and growing bo ther that occurs when youth use electronics to harass or intimidate their peers in a deliberate attempt to inflict direct or indirect harm. There are some unique elements in the digital setting that are not present offline, such as anonymity, constant connectivity, and permanence. This new technology allows victims to be attacked at anytime and the anonymity of cyber bullies makes it difficult to identify them. Agnew argues that strain makes people feel angry, frustrated, depressed, and essentially creates pressure for corrective action on the part of the victim. In response to this pressure, victims react by wanting to take a corrective action as a means to gentle the notional feelings. Consequently for some victims, cyber bullying is one corrective action that adolescents superpower take to mitigate the bad feelings (Patchin Hinduja, 2011). Together, general strain theory and frustration aggression hypothesis, provide an understanding of how people, especially youth, respond and deal with negative strain, whether it may be to bully others or do deviant acts to alleviate the strain.Routine Activity Theory was developed by Cohen and Felson to originally worry the shortcomings in existing models that failed to adequately address crime rate trends since the end of World War II. They suggested that the behavior of most victims is repetitive and predictable and that the likelihood of victimization is dependent on three elements do offenders, suitable hindquarterss, and the absence seizure of capable guardians (Reyns, 2013). The motivated offender is someone willing to commit a crime if an opportunity presents itself. A suitable target is one that the motivated offender values (e.g., credit card breeding). In addition to these, a capable guardian includes anything that obstructs the offenders ability to acquire the target (e.g., antivirus, encryption). With the increasing use of the internet, criminals have found new opportunities to victimize their targe ts on a whole new platform. lookers have found some support for applying the tenets of routine activity theory to the study of cybercrime (Van Wilsem, 2011). People whose regular activities place them in situations where they have the possibility of interacting with offenders are at an increased risk of being victimized. Research has found that the amount of time spent online, more use of internet banking and online purchases, and risky online behavior make people more suitable to offenders. Individuals with these actions are more likely to be targeted for identity thievery. Furthermore, the lack of antivirus and network security (capable guardians) is associated with more victimization (Reyns, 2013). So, routine activity theory can be used, to an extent, to explain certain types of cybercrime.Situational crime prevention is a crime prevention strategy that addresses specific crimes by manipulating the environment in a way that increases the risk to the offender, while cut back th e electric voltage reward for committing the crime (Hinduja Kooi, 2013). It is rooted in rational choice theory, routine activities theory, and crime pattern theory. Like other prevention measures, situational prevention focuses on reducing crime opportunities earlier than the criminals. This theory differs from other criminological theories in that they do not look at why the offender did the crime, but rather how to prevent crime from altering the physical surroundings where the crime takes place. Essentially, it seeks to make the criminal act more difficult to commit in the first place. Like other primary crime prevention measures, situational prevention tends to focus on reducing crime opportunities rather than on the characteristics of criminals or potential difference criminals. In regards to cybercrime, there are ways in which space can be designed to prevent crime through target hardening, access control, deflecting offenders, and controlling facilitators (Hinduja Kooi , 2013). Target hardening is the actual physical (or digital) barriers that slew chances of crime, such as encrypting sensitive information. Access control involves strategies to prevent potential offenders from areas that a crime can occur. This includes photo ID cards, passwords, and check-in booths. Deflecting offenders is concerned with initiatives to move potential offenders away from their crime targets. For example, storing valuable data off-site would deter potential offenders from searching for it. Controlling facilitators involves checking elements that may cause a crime, such as doing background checks on employees or restricting unauthorized installations on computers (Hinduja Kooi, 2013). Research has found that situational crime prevention strategies can be used to reduce cyber stalking and other online victimization crimes. Also, prevention strategies can be applied InfoSec to effectively protect the assets of organizations from being exploited online (Hinduja Kooi , 2013). Theoretically, if used effectively, the principles of situational crime prevention seem to be able to prevent most types of cyber crime.Computers and the internet have become common place in todays nine. This new technology has resulted in the development of a new form of crime, cybercrime. I think that criminal behavior cannot be explained entirely by one theory it requires the combination of various theories. Different aspects of each theory can be used in conjunction to compensate for what each individual theory failed to explain. For example, social learning theory believes that crime is learned through association with deviant peers and research has already shown that there is a descent between the number of deviant peers an individual has and his or her participation in software piracy (Burruss et al., 2012). But, researchers have not examined whether social learning theory applies to all types of cybercrimes or just certain cybercrimes. On the other hand, low self control theory asserts that low self control is the cause of crime all the time. This may be true for some criminals, but many criminals, like those involved in white collar crimes, do not adhere to the principles of low self control. However, while self-control theory is useful in explaining why individuals may act in a certain way, it does not explain the situations that must be met for a crime to occur. Routine activity theory describes the situational factors that must be present for a crime to occur. It is more difficult to apply this theory to cybercrime because the offender and victim do not necessarily have to meet for the crime to occur. standardised to low self control theory, strain theory maintains that when an individual cannot achieve his or her goals, he or she experiences strain and as a result they may turn to crime (Patchin Hinduja, 2011). But, researchers could further study whether an individuals strain in the real world affects their deviant behavior in the vi rtual world. So, an individuals low self-control and negative strain combined with his or her deviant associations and regular activities can increase an individuals risk of being victimized online. Future studies of cybercrime victimization may draw benefit from using a combination of these theories to explore the problem. Cybercrime research will be important to our understanding of crime as our society becomes more and more dependent on technology.ReferencesBurruss, George W., Bossler, Adam M. And Holt, Thomas J. (2012). Assessing the mediation of a fuller social learning model on low self-controls influence on software piracy. Crime and Delinquency, 59(5), 1157-1184Hinduja, Sameer and Kooi, Brandon. (2013). Curtailing cyber and information security vulnerabilities through situational crime prevention. Security daybook, 26(4), 383-402Patchin, Justin W. and Hinduja, Sameer. (2011). Traditional and non-traditional bullying among youth A test of general strain theory. Youth Socie ty, 43(2), 727-751.Reyns, Bradford W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization Further explaining routine activity theory beyond direct-control offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216-238Runions, Kevin C. (2013). Toward a conceptual model of motive and self-control in cyber-aggression Rage, reward and recreation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 751-771.Van Wilsem, Johan. (2011). Worlds tied(p) together? Online and non-domestic routine activities and their impact on digital and traditional menace victimization. European Journal of Criminology, 8(2), 115-127