Assignment 2: Digital Crime Theories Due Week 6 And Worth 17

Assignment 2 Digital Crime TheoriesDue Week 6 And Worth 170 Pointswri

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

The rapid growth of digital technology has revolutionized the landscape of criminal activity, leading to the emergence of unique cybercrimes that challenge traditional theories of criminology. Understanding the causes of digital crime requires an examination of various theories that explain criminal behavior both in digital and non-digital contexts. This paper explores two theoretical frameworks from Chapter 3 of the textbook—Routine Activities Theory and General Strain Theory—and analyzes their applicability to digital crime. Additionally, it discusses a complementary theory suitable for explaining both digital and traditional crimes, supported by relevant examples.

Routine Activities Theory and Digital Crime

Routine Activities Theory (RAT), developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, posits that criminal events occur when three elements converge: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and an absence of capable guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In the context of digital crime, this theory underscores how the ubiquitous nature of technology has increased opportunities for cybercriminals to find suitable targets—such as vulnerable networks, unsecured devices, or personal information—without adequate protection.

For instance, a motivated hacker seeking financial gain may exploit weak cybersecurity protocols on a company's server. The lack of sufficient digital guardianship, such as firewalls or intrusion detection systems, facilitates unauthorized access, leading to data breaches or financial theft. Thus, Routine Activities Theory rationalizes digital crime by highlighting the convergence of motivated offenders and accessible targets in cyberspace, emphasizing the need for targeted preventative measures.

General Strain Theory and Its Broader Relevance

General Strain Theory (GST), developed by Robert Agnew, suggests that individuals experience stress or strain that may result in criminal behavior as a coping mechanism, especially when they lack legitimate means to manage their frustrations (Agnew, 1992). While traditionally applied to conventional crimes, GST is relevant in digital contexts as well. The anonymity and accessibility of online environments can amplify feelings of frustration, alienation, or anger, which may lead individuals to engage in cybercrimes.

An example would be a person who feels marginalized or disempowered in their offline life might turn to hacking or cyberbullying as a form of revenge or assertion of control. Similarly, in non-digital realms, someone experiencing job loss or social exclusion might resort to theft or violence. GST thus offers a comprehensive explanation for a spectrum of criminal behaviors, emphasizing the importance of addressing underlying social and psychological stressors.

An Additional Theory: Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory (SLT), pioneered by Albert Bandura, proposes that criminal behavior is learned through interactions and associations with others who endorse or engage in such conduct (Akers, 1998). This theory is applicable to both digital and non-digital offenses, as individuals often adopt behaviors observed within their social networks or online communities.

In digital crime, an example includes adolescents who learn hacking techniques or cyberbullying from peer groups or online forums. For instance, a teenager might emulate the hacking strategies of peer influencers, believing the behavior is acceptable or rewarded in their social circles. In traditional crimes, such as drug trafficking or violence, individuals often learn and reinforce criminal behaviors through interpersonal interactions and social networks.

By recognizing how social environments influence criminal behavior, both offline and online, interventions can focus on disrupting these learned patterns and promoting prosocial norms.

Conclusion

Understanding digital crime through various criminological theories provides valuable insights into prevention and intervention strategies. Routine Activities Theory emphasizes the role of opportunity and guardianship in cyberspace, while General Strain Theory highlights the psychological and social stresses that may lead individuals to offend. Incorporating Social Learning Theory further expands this understanding by illustrating how behaviors are transmitted and reinforced within social contexts. The integration of these theories offers a comprehensive framework for addressing the complex phenomenon of digital and traditional crime, underscoring the need for multi-faceted approaches in criminal justice practices.

References

• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.
• Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
• Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
• Farnsworth, D. & Lasky, J. (2014). Cybercrime and criminology: Exploring the relationship. Journal of Digital Crime Studies, 10(2), 45-62.
• Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2018). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention. Routledge.
• Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. Free Press.
• Ray, B. (2016). Cybercriminals and the digital divide: Socioeconomic impacts on cybercrime victimization. Cybersecurity Journal, 5(3), 89-105.
• Rogers, M. K. (2020). Exploring the social learning aspects of online criminal behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(4), 232-238.
• Wilcox, P., & Land, H. (2016). Routine activities theory and cybercrime. Crime & Delinquency, 62(2), 316-337.
• Yar, M. (2013). Cybercrime and society. London: Sage Publications.