Deterrence Theory
The Deterrence Theory Deterrence of a crime is based on choice theory, which is the assumption that a person is making a conscious decision to commit a criminal act. Since the person is making a conscious effort to commit the crime, deterrence is meant to reflect the punishment for the crime based on that decision. In computer crime, since most computer users are aware of what constitutes as an illegal act (e.g. downloading music without paying for it), the assumption is that most people know when they are committing the crime. The reasons why deterrence may or may not be effective, the punishments used, and the key concepts of deterrence are the topic being discussed today. Key concepts of deterrence are general deterrence, specific deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution theory. (Keel, 2005) General deterrence involves making laws to prevent future crimes from happening. The idea behind
…show more content…
it is to make the rationalization behind the crime seem less appealing by making the risks outweigh the benefits of the crime. Specific deterrence is aimed at known deviants to limit their ability to commit crimes in the future. Examples of this would be the death penalty or the three strikes law. Incapacitation deals with incarceration. If the criminal is locked away, it is much harder for them to commit another crime, thus reducing the effect on citizens. Retribution or the “Just Deserts” theory is if the person committed a crime, they deserve to be punished. (Keel, 2005) There is no want or need for rehabilitation, or future crimes the person may commit. Everyone who commits the crime is punished equally under the law. Currently, the main punishments for computer crimes are heavy fines and incarceration in a Federal prison, plus additional charges based on the crime committed. The punishments can range anywhere from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class B felony depending on the damage inflicted. On top of that, the victims of the criminal are allowed to sue the criminal. (Reinhart, 2012) Since most of the people who commit computer crimes are usually financially driven, the thought of having to pay $15,000 in fines on top of jail time may pause before committing the crime. Deterrence is a far from perfect theory for handling crime.
It is believed that a person with low self-control is more likely to underestimate the risks of a criminal act and overestimate the benefits. (Hu , Xu, Dinev, & Ling, 2011) Criminals in general tend to believe that they just won’t be caught, and they’ll be able to run or get out scot-free. With computer crime, it is easy to forget that there are ways for tracing the crime back to the person who did it. This is also a common occurrence with most non-electronic crimes as well, such as murder or burglary. For some reason, they believe that there will be no evidence leading back to the burglar/murderer, to a point where some people have left their wallet at a crime scene. Since there appears to be a lesser presence of an authority online, I believe more people are apt to think they are exempt from laws. Every once in a while you hear about someone who actually went to jail for pirating movies or music, but out of the thousands of people who participate in the illegal activity, it seems like a victimless
crime. Deterrence is a theory on how to handle the influx of criminal activities. While it may work on a reasonable person with strong moral values (Hu , Xu, Dinev, & Ling, 2011), for the most part it is ineffective on the projected audience. It just comes down to the criminal’s ability to believe they are invincible and exempt from committing crimes, computer and otherwise. In conclusion, deterrence may be flawed, but unfortunately it’s one of the only tools society has to compete with criminal behavior as of right now. Hopefully one day, society as a whole will find a way to prevent crimes effectively.
References:
Hu , Q., Xu, Z., Dinev, T., & Ling, H. (2011, June 1). Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from ACM: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1953142
Keel, R. (2005, July 14). University of Minnesota-St. Louis. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from University of Minnesota-St. Louis: http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html
Reinhart, C. (2012, June 28). OLR Research Report. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from OLR Research Report: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0254.htm
it is to make the rationalization behind the crime seem less appealing by making the risks outweigh the benefits of the crime. Specific deterrence is aimed at known deviants to limit their ability to commit crimes in the future. Examples of this would be the death penalty or the three strikes law. Incapacitation deals with incarceration. If the criminal is locked away, it is much harder for them to commit another crime, thus reducing the effect on citizens. Retribution or the “Just Deserts” theory is if the person committed a crime, they deserve to be punished. (Keel, 2005) There is no want or need for rehabilitation, or future crimes the person may commit. Everyone who commits the crime is punished equally under the law. Currently, the main punishments for computer crimes are heavy fines and incarceration in a Federal prison, plus additional charges based on the crime committed. The punishments can range anywhere from a Class B misdemeanor to a Class B felony depending on the damage inflicted. On top of that, the victims of the criminal are allowed to sue the criminal. (Reinhart, 2012) Since most of the people who commit computer crimes are usually financially driven, the thought of having to pay $15,000 in fines on top of jail time may pause before committing the crime. Deterrence is a far from perfect theory for handling crime.
It is believed that a person with low self-control is more likely to underestimate the risks of a criminal act and overestimate the benefits. (Hu , Xu, Dinev, & Ling, 2011) Criminals in general tend to believe that they just won’t be caught, and they’ll be able to run or get out scot-free. With computer crime, it is easy to forget that there are ways for tracing the crime back to the person who did it. This is also a common occurrence with most non-electronic crimes as well, such as murder or burglary. For some reason, they believe that there will be no evidence leading back to the burglar/murderer, to a point where some people have left their wallet at a crime scene. Since there appears to be a lesser presence of an authority online, I believe more people are apt to think they are exempt from laws. Every once in a while you hear about someone who actually went to jail for pirating movies or music, but out of the thousands of people who participate in the illegal activity, it seems like a victimless
crime. Deterrence is a theory on how to handle the influx of criminal activities. While it may work on a reasonable person with strong moral values (Hu , Xu, Dinev, & Ling, 2011), for the most part it is ineffective on the projected audience. It just comes down to the criminal’s ability to believe they are invincible and exempt from committing crimes, computer and otherwise. In conclusion, deterrence may be flawed, but unfortunately it’s one of the only tools society has to compete with criminal behavior as of right now. Hopefully one day, society as a whole will find a way to prevent crimes effectively.
References:
Hu , Q., Xu, Z., Dinev, T., & Ling, H. (2011, June 1). Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from ACM: http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1953142
Keel, R. (2005, July 14). University of Minnesota-St. Louis. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from University of Minnesota-St. Louis: http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html
Reinhart, C. (2012, June 28). OLR Research Report. Retrieved July 28, 2013, from OLR Research Report: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/rpt/2012-R-0254.htm