Assignment 2: Digital Crime Theories Due Week 6

Assignment 2: Digital Crime Theories Due Week 6 and Worth

Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: Select two (2) of the theories, suggested in Chapter 3 of the text, that a researcher could use to explain the cause of digital crime. Provide a rationale to support your response. Explain the manner in which the theory that you selected in Question 1 relates to crime in general. Determine one (1) additional theory that a researcher could use to explain the cause of digital-crime and non-digital crime. Include one (1) example for each crime in question to support your response.

Use at least three (3) quality references for this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.

Paper For Above instruction

In the contemporary landscape of criminal justice, understanding the causes of digital crime is essential for developing effective prevention and intervention strategies. Theories derived from criminology provide valuable frameworks for analyzing why individuals engage in digital criminal behaviors. This paper explores two theories from Chapter 3 of the relevant textbook—Routine Activities Theory and Strain Theory—as explanations for digital crimes. Additionally, it discusses how these theories relate to traditional crime in general and introduces another theory—Social Learning Theory—to explain both digital and non-digital crimes, with illustrative examples.

Routine Activities Theory and Digital Crime

The Routine Activities Theory (RAT), developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, posits that crime occurs when three elements converge: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship. From a digital perspective, this theory can be applied to cybercrimes such as hacking or identity theft. For instance, cybercriminals (motivated offenders) often target unsecured online databases (suitable targets) when there is insufficient cybersecurity measures (lack of guardianship). This model emphasizes the opportunity structures that enable digital offenses, suggesting that reducing vulnerabilities or increasing protective measures can mitigate crime.

Relating RAT to general crime, it highlights that many crimes, whether digital or physical, depend on the convergence of offender motivation, target accessibility, and guardianship or deterrence. For example, burglaries tend to spike during holiday seasons when homes are less protected, illustrating how opportunity facilitates criminal acts. The theory underscores the importance of situational factors in the commission of crime, emphasizing preventive measures such as enhanced security protocols in both digital and real-world contexts.

Strain Theory and Digital Crime

Strain Theory, initially conceptualized by Robert K. Merton, explains crime as a result of societal pressures and individuals' inability to achieve culturally accepted goals through legitimate means. In the digital realm, this theory suggests that some individuals turn to cybercrime due to economic hardship or social marginalization. For example, an unemployed person might resort to credit card fraud or software hacking as a means to achieve financial stability—responses to the strain caused by limited legitimate opportunities. This theory elucidates how societal discontent can drive individuals toward criminal behaviors, both online and offline.

In relation to general crime, Strain Theory emphasizes that the gap between societal aspirations and actual opportunities can lead to criminal adaptation. An example outside the digital sphere includes street-level drug trafficking, where individuals engage in illegal activities due to economic deprivation. Understanding this connection helps criminal justice practitioners develop social and economic programs aimed at alleviating such strains, thereby reducing the impetus for criminal conduct.

Social Learning Theory and Its Application to Digital and Non-Digital Crime

Social Learning Theory, formulated by Albert Bandura, asserts that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others who model or reinforce such actions. This theory applies to digital crime, where offenders often learn hacking techniques or scams from online communities or peer groups. For example, individuals involved in hacking groups such as Anonymous might share knowledge and validate criminal behaviors, reinforcing their engagement in cybercrimes.

Similarly, this theory explains non-digital crime. For instance, youth involved in gang violence often adopt criminal behaviors through socialization and exposure to peer influences. Experiences of reinforced criminal activities develop a pattern of law-breaking that becomes normative within their social circles. Recognizing the role of social influences in both contexts highlights the importance of intervention programs that target peer groups and community environments to prevent the social transmission of criminal behaviors.

Conclusion

The application of criminological theories such as Routine Activities Theory, Strain Theory, and Social Learning Theory offers comprehensive insights into the causes of digital and traditional crimes. While RAT emphasizes opportunity and situational factors, Strain Theory underlines societal pressures that foster criminal responses. Social Learning Theory demonstrates the significance of learned behaviors through social interactions. Combining these perspectives provides a nuanced understanding essential for developing holistic crime prevention strategies in an increasingly digital society.

References

• Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682.
• Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
• Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (Eds.). (2014). Cybercrime and Digital Forensics: An Introduction. Routledge.
• Holt, T. J. (2013). Routine Activity Theory and Cybercrime. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(4), 444–462.
• Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology. J.B. Lippincott & Co.
• Akbulut, A., & Kose, A. (2020). Examining Social Learning Theory in Cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(5), 319–324.
• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.
• Farrall, S. (2004). Social Disorganization and Crime: A Review of Recent Research. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 4(2), 133–151.
• Yar, M. (2013). Cybercrime and Society. Sage Publications.