Cybercrime technology Essay

People rationally choose to participate in criminal   acts;  in order to   prevent these acts from occurring people need to know that consequences will outweigh the benefits. If people believe that the consequences outweigh the benefits t hen they will   freely choose not to participate in the criminal behavior. On the other hand the positive   school of criminology believes that individuals participate in crime because of forces beyond individual control and relies on the scientific method to prove   it s theories (Cullen & Agnew, 2006  ). Individuals should not  be held solely responsible for their actions   because not everyone is rational. Outside factors can play an important part in determining one‟s participation in crime. Now that we have exami ned the two most   dominant schools of criminological theory we can examine how two theories, self –  control and routine activity, have been applied to the study of cybercrime and cybercrime victimization. Self – Control  Theory  One general crime theory that has been applied to the study of cybercrime is  self –  control theory. Self –  control theory was first proposed by Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson in their 1990 publication A General Theory of Crime  . Self  Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚  control theory   beli  eves that criminal motivation is rampant, but that people act on this motivation only when they possess low self  Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚  control   (Cullen & Agnew, 2006)  . This paper will discuss the   basic elements of self –  control theory, as well as research that has provided eviden ce to   support the validity of this theory. Then this section will review empirical studies that have applied self  Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚  control theory  to the stu  dy of cybercrime and cyber victimization  and   will dis  cuss the benefits  of applying this theory to the study of cyberc  rime. Cybercrime 28 In their book, A General Theory of Crime , Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson describe the major characteristics that define individuals with and without self – control (1990). Individual‟s with low self – control are â€Å" impulsive, insensitive, physica l (as opposed to mental), risk –  taking, short sighted, and nonverbal, and they will   tend therefore to engage in criminal and analogous acts .† (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990) People with characteristics of low self –  control may be more likely to participate in  deviant acts because they want immediate gratification. As compared to individuals who lack self –  control, individuals with self –  control are able to delay immediate gratification   and are more likely to be vigilant, emotional, verbal, and long –  term orientat  ed (Hirschi &   Gottfredson, 1990). Individuals who possess characteristics of self –  control may be better   able to appreciate the consequences of participating in   deviant acts and have the control  necessary to delay their gratification. In conclusion, those who lack self –  control are more   likely to possess characteristics such as impulsivity a  nd short –  sightedness, that make  crime and its immediate gratification more attractive to them, as compared to those who possess characteristics of high self –  control such   as being cautious and long –  term   orientated.   This brings up an important question, does an individual‟s level of self –  control   develop over time or is someone born with one level of self –  control that remains the same  throughout his or her lifetime  . According to Hirschi and Gottfredson individuals are  not  born with one certain level of self –  control,   rather   they learn self –  control most often   through their parents (  Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990  ). An individual does not have only   on  e  level of self –  control, as they grow older they may develop a different level of self –  control then when they were younger. However, they do suggest that, â€Å"†¦individual Cybercrime 29  differences may have an impact on the prospects for effective socialization† ( Hirschi & G  ottfredson, 1990  ). For example, individuals with mental health problems may have a higher probability of not being effectively socialized. The authors believed that self –  control is learned through life, but especially while you are a child. The authors   al  so addressed why some individuals possess characteristics of self –  control. They suggest that individuals develop characteristics of self –  control as a result of   their upbringing (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990). While   parents do not intentionally  teach   their c  hildren  to not have  self –  control, the authors  suggest that â€Å"  in order to teach the child   self –  control, someone must (1) monitor the child‟s behavior; (2) recognize deviant behavior when it occurs; and (3) punish such behavior†¦all that is required to activat e the   system is affection for or investment in the child  .† (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990) They   suggest that a deficiency in any one of these categories will inadvertently allow the child to develop characteristics of low self –  control (Hirschi & Gottfredson , 1990).   Characteristics of low self –  control can be the result of ineffective parenting. Low self –  control makes crime more attractive to individuals who possess learned characteristics such as impulsivity and lack of responsibility. Good parenting is impo  rtant in developing   individuals who possess high levels of self –  control, however good parenting can only   occur if parents care about their children and are able to monitor, recognize, and effectively punish their children for deviant behavior. Self  Ã¢â‚¬â€œÃ‚  control theory  has been the subject of many empirical studies, which have   attempted to test the validity of the theory in explaining crime (Pratt & Cullen 200 0; Pratt, Turner & Piquero 2004; Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan 2004 ; Turner,   Piquero, & Pratt 20  05; Reisig &Pratt 2011;   Deng & Zheng 1998 ) . In 2000, Pratt and