Computer hacking is broadly defined as intentionally accessing a computer withou
ID: 3787250 • Letter: C
Question
Computer hacking is broadly defined as intentionally accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access. To date, most studies have focused almost exclusively on the victims of computer hackers; therefore, the research concerning the actual hacker has been limited to a select few studies. Explain how the author applied Sykes and Matza's (1957) Techniques of Neutralization theory to explain the hackers' motivation in engaging in this type of cybercrime. In a least 3 paragraph
Explanation / Answer
The Techniques of Neutralization
The techniques of neutralization theory (Sykes and Matza, 1957; Matza; 1964) attempts to explain part of the etiology of crime while assuming that most people are generally unopposed to conventional (i.e., non-criminal) beliefs, most of the time. Even so, they may engage inNeutralizing Hacking criminal behavior from time to time (Sykes & Matza, 1957; Matza, 1964). Sykes and Matza,though focused only on juvenile delinquency, argued that people become criminal or deviant
through developing rationalizations or neutralizations for their activities prior to engaging in the criminal act. In this sense, attitudes toward criminality may be contextually based. Specifically,
Sykes and Matza developed five techniques of neutralization that were argued to capture the justifications that a person uses prior to engaging in a criminal/deviant act. This was argued to allow the individual to drift between criminality and conventionality (Matza, 1964).
The techniques of neutralization include
1) the denial of responsibility,
2) the denial of an injury,
3)the denial of a victim,
4) the condemnation of the condemners,
5) an appeal to higher loyalties.
These five techniques are discussed in some detail below.
In using the denial of responsibility to justify engaging in a crime, the individual may direct any potential blame to an alternative source or circumstance. In other words, blame is shifted to a source other than the self. The individual may also conclude that no harm (to
property or to other individuals) will result from the action (the denial of injury), thus participation in the behavior is harmless. For example, Copes (2003) found that joyriding auto thieves regularly felt that since the car was eventually brought back, there was no harm in
joyriding. The denial of a victim may be particularly apparent in cyber related crimes. This technique might be used when the victim is not physically visible or is unknown or abstract. This view suggests that if there is no victim, there can be no harm. As an example, Dabney (1995) found that employees tended to use this neutralization technique to justify taking items found on company property if there was no clear owner (i.e., another employee or the company). A condemnation of the condemners refers an expression of discontent with the perceptions of authority holders. For example, holding the view that those opposed to the action are hypocrites,deviants in disguise, or impelled by personal spite (Skyes & Matza (1957, p. 668). In other words, the critics are in no position to judge my actions, thus my actions are not inappropriate.Sykes and Matza’s (1957) final technique of neutralization, an appeal to higher loyalties, refers to justifying actions as being a part of an obligation to something equal to or greater than one’s own self-interest. For traditional crimes, an example would be the rationalization of embezzling
from a company in order to pay for a child’s college tuition or medical costs.
After reading the above passage, you may be thinking of types of justifications or neutralizations that weren’t explicitly covered in the original five presented by Sykes and Matza
(1957)—at least you should be doing so! The original five techniques do not account for every possible justification. Several criminologists have expanded the list through more recent research
studies. An example developed by Minor (1981) was termed the defense of necessity. According to this technique, “if an act is perceived as necessary, then one need not feel guilty about its
commission, even if it is considered morally wrong in the abstract” (Minor, 1981, p. 298). Morris and Higgins (2009) found modest support for this technique of neutralization, and others, in predicting self-reported and anticipated digital piracy (i.e., illegal downloading of media). Other extensions of the techniques of neutralization include, but are not limited to, the metaphor of ledgers (Klockers, 1974) and justification by comparison and postponement (Cromwell &Thurman, 2003)—for greater detail and a full review of neutralization theory see Maruna andCopes (2005).
To this point, the discussion on neutralization theory has surrounded the idea that neutralizations of criminal conduct precede the actual conduct, as argued by Sykes and Matza(1957). However, neutralizations may occur after the crime takes place and there is someresearch that is suggestive of this. For example, Hirschi (1969) argued that neutralizations maybegin after the initial criminal acts take place, but post-onset, may be used as a precursor to the act. Either way, continued research is needed to hash out whether neutralizations occur before or after a crime is committed (see Maruna & Copes, 2005). The fact is that several studies have found a significant link between neutralizations and crime, including digital crimes (e.g., Ingram
& Hinduja, 2008; Hinduja, 2007; Morris & Higgins, 2009). However, no study to date has quantitatively assessed the relationship between techniques of neutralization and computer hacking. The remainder of this is devoted to addressing this gap in the literature. Based
on the extant neutralization literature, it is hypothesized here that neutralization will explainsome variation in participation in computer hacking.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.