Cybercrime
Cybercrime is a form of criminal activity where perpetrators use computers or knowledge on computers to commit criminal activities to unsuspecting members of society. Often, cybercrime criminals hack functioning systems to either change the systems or get control over sites that they originally do not have access to. Empowered individuals who involve in cybercrime activities are members of the society who have knowledge of technology but are mostly unemployed or tech gurus who hack systems for fun. Cybercrime activities can be done against an individual or an organization. At the same time, it can be done by one person or by a group of individuals who work collectively to hack through a network. Cybercriminals use digital platforms to access or fake identities; interfere with an individual’s intellectual property, violate privacy, among others.
Theoretical perspectives of criminology
A lot of cybercrimes are not particularly unique to other forms of crime since they tend to reflect crimes that happen in physical space. Nevertheless, it is the surrounding in which crime offenders operate that differentiate these types of offenses into distinct categories. For example, a person will not necessarily participate in a crime that needs an advanced level of technical expertise or knowledge without first learning and getting the technical skills to do it skillfully. However, it is not enough to say that having technical knowledge of executing the crime is the only requirement but the data about the criminal market and how to benefit or obtain a reward from committing the crime.
Many theories have been put in place to explain this phenomenon, but the major theories are the innovation theory (the structural theory of Merton) and the theory of learning, and the influence of others.
The structural strain theory of Merton (innovation theory)
The structural strain theory of Merton was originally envisaged in 1938. It is based on the idea that those who challenge achieving the culturally laid out goals have some experience of strain. Each particular culture has specific goals. For example, the American dream in American culture advocates the path of individual hard work and honesty in attaining wealth. Innovation theory is a means of innovation that is used as a pathway for committing cybercrime. It is termed as the most vital mode of adaption for justifying the claim of crime. While in the act of striving to achieve their goal, whether the goal is financial freedom or the other driver’s gratifications, the offenders use this means of innovation, for example, cybercrimes that offer an illegal income, as a shortcut to attain the goals.
Technical offenders who may be referred to as “innovators” usually have a distinct channel of offending, differential association by name. These offenders chiefly work with others. There are numerous highly developed online platforms and communities used for sharing information and learning, trading tools, and recruitment of others to commit crimes and offenses.
The would-be-offenders are usually people with an interest in computer-related things such as gaming or technology, and they usually start by communicating online in which they learn the techniques and methods of committing cybercrime. They may also share the definitions and neutralization techniques that assist the occurrence of the offense. The neutralization techniques used by technical offenders are denial of victims (they intentionally do not make their systems secure, are doing questionable actions and activities, or create the perception that they have done them wrong) and denial of injury (since the individual victims do not suffer loss). The offenders sometimes turn away from targets they perceive as not deserving victimization, or there is a possibility of harming innocent parties. A neutralization technique is the condemner’s use of condemnation and is evidenced during which the victim gets accused of harming others. An example is an instance where a military system is getting attacked. The perpetrators also claim more loyalties when their actions are seen to be for a good cause, such as revealing vulnerabilities or raising the transparency of the system. There is, however, little evidence of responsibility denial. For example, perpetrators say that they view themselves as computer addicts though they do not guarantee legal defense.
The theory also explains the inequality of gender balance in cybercrime. For example, females are more involved in frauds that are opportunistic (general offending) as compared to males, who are more involved in technical offending. This could be attributed to the nature of opportunities that they are presented to. Females are likely to take the first pathway (general) to commit offense compared to males. Quite a number of the males have experienced some substantial strain way before their offending. The second pathway is usually male, dominated by males. Justifications for this revolve around social stereotypes, including the type of social communities in which learning and differential associations exist, which skews the male side in acceptance.
Solutions proposed by the theory
Cybercrime perpetrators usually retain the offending behavior not solely because of the profits gained from cybercrime activities such as credit card forgery but also due to the low-risk level associated with crime. The perpetrators perceive, in general, the probability of getting discovered as low, and this takes a greater weight than the severity of the punishment in place. To combat cybercrime, the structural strain theory of Merton advocates coming up with better ways to track down cybercrime criminals with high precision and a high chance of getting one. The systems should be secured in such a way that it detects crime at the slightest chance at any given instance of fraudulent activity. The systems should have the capability of instantly giving an alarm in case of unusual activity. Therefore, the innovation theory seems to call for creating more secure systems rather than creating harsher punishments for the offenders to combat cybercrime.
The structural strain theory of Merton (innovative theory) also advocates the use of cessation to counteract cybercrime activities. This is the act of reducing the benefits that could be accrued from the act by the offenders while at the same time increasing the cost of committing the cybercrime offense. Perpetrators of cybercrime desist from cybercrime after they no longer get benefits from the act or when the benefits are outweighed by the cost (Hutchings, 2013b). Some offenders of cybercrime, for example, abandon the crime when they do not experience the initial excitement like before or when they lack to get some form of self-achievement and gratification from the activity. According to cybercrime perpetrators, in this theory, the costs are not limited to the sentences given out by the systems of criminal justice. Cybercrime perpetrators believe that the probability of getting detected is low, costs attached with offending are usually social in nature, and the amount of time they spent online engaged, which interferes with the intimate relationship or legitimate employment. An example is when a cybercrime offender quit cybercrime activities because of his other life commitments, which was mainly his intimate relationship. (Hutchings, 2013, b). The costs can also be attributed to the feelings of shame or guilt by the offender, which possibly had been mediated previously by the internet since cybercrime perpetrators are usually not in the same location or visual contact with the victims of the crime.
Effectiveness and assumptions of Merton’s structural strain theory
This theory is based on assumptions and, therefore, not so effective in justifying cybercrimes that deviate far away from the assumptions. The assumptions are that property, money, law, and crime are social constructs. It is due to the reason that society has silently agreed that individuals can own a property, that money exists, that persons have rights, and that governments involved in making laws have the authority to do so, and there is a certain system of justice that punish certain behaviors. Therefore, what is termed to be illegal is subject to vary across jurisdictions and time.
Social Learning Theory
The theory of social learning is psychological. It is the work of Albert bandura.(). The fundamental of social learning theory is that a person inherits behavior from other people through learning at the cognitive level by observing the actions of other people (Blackburn, 1993; Feldman, 1993; Hollin, 1989). It states that humans have the capability to picture themselves in the same situations with similar outcomes (Ewen, 1980). After the behavior has been learned, it could be punished or reinforced by the results it generates.
The main concepts of differential reinforcement are relevant to cybercrime, particularly hacking. Even though hackers are usually associated with loneliness and have poorly developed social skills, which are self-reported, there seems to be a strong want of affiliation and desire for peers (Littman, 1997; Post, 1996; Sterling, 1992). Hackers seem to have an association with other persons engaging in similar behavior (hacking). The associations happen online or in a hacking club as Legion of Doom in which the hacker has to subscribe to first.
It is evidently seen that the hackers learn their respective criminal behavior and are does so from the people who uphold such behaviors with a positive gesture. The persistence of hacking could be attributed to numerous reinforcement factors. It can come from gaining more knowledge, completing puzzles successfully, or the prestige one attains within the hacking community. There are some instances where big companies have hired hackers who have successfully penetrated their systems. (Goodell, 1996; Hafner & Markoff, 1995; Littman, 1995). This largely creates a notion that someone can become a hacker and land a big job in a big tech company, which is more of a myth than reality. This myth is manifested in reinforcement learning. This contributes to an increase in the hacking cybercrime malice.
Some other aspects of reinforcement of cybercrime are the instance that the media is charmed with hackers’ romantic imagination and has turned some hackers into celebrities (Littman, 1995; Power, 1996). Sometimes back youth from Israel got charged by the US for attacking military networks belonging to the US. Surprisingly, the Youth was later awarded a lucrative contract of promotion by a computer manufacturer in Europe and got praised by the Israeli prime minister attributing it to his ingenuity (Wired, 1998).
Solutions proposed by the theory
Stiffer sentences due to hacking should be put in place. There have been many instances of hackers being arrested, but the arrest later gets undermined seriously due absence of stiff sentences in some places. Sometimes back in Canada, the mean sentence for the offense of using a computer service without authorization was a youth alternative measure and an adult’s conditional discharge (Rogers, 2001).
The theory holds that cybercrime, such as hacking, is learned by an individual from a community of hackers. The government should outlaw such groups and track down any member of such outlawed groups to combat hacking. The governing authority should restrict internet usage by sieving information getting out of the internet, hence stemming learning of hacking behavior from the internet.
The media should desist from popularizing successful hackers and embracing hacking behavior. Some media outlets have in the past published some hacking activities as heroism, which is wrong. Companies, especially the big tech companies, should sue those who try to sabotage through hacking or penetrating their systems without obtaining permission from them to disdain hacking activity.
Effectiveness of social learning theory
Social learning theory effectively explains the emergence of cybercrime activities such as hacking because of the consistent reinforcement theories. Social learning theory is not based on assumptions; therefore, it tends to reflect the cyber criminology environment’s reality. The only setback for this theory is Skinner’s operant theory in social learning theory, where it does not account for the behavior of reinforcement (Blackburn, 1993; Hollin, 1989).
Comparison of the structural strain theory of Merton and the social learning theory.
Both theories explain the emergence of cybercrime activities with strong theoretical concepts with real-life facts as backups.
Merton’s structural strain theory is based on the innovation theory is a means of innovation that is used as a pathway for committing cybercrime. In contrast, social learning theory is based on reinforcement concepts explaining the emergence of cybercrimes in society.
Merton’s structural strain theory is based on assumptions and, therefore, not consistent in justifying cybercrime growth. Social learning theory is better in explaining cybercrime such as hacking because of the conversant reinforce concepts.
Conclusion
Social learning theory offers the best chance of understanding the hacking cybercrime. The main reinforcement concepts, behavior learning from various hacking groups, reinforcement, and behavior maintenance seem to be quite relevant to hacking. However, this is not always true because there have been instances that cannot be explained by this theory. There are hackers who have been caught and apprehended repeatedly with no reinforcement but continued with the hacking activity as if it was a compulsion.