Fear of cyber-identity theft and related fraudulent activity

Identity theft and related fraudulent activities affect approximately one in twenty-five adults each year across western societies. The Internet provides a new avenue for obtaining identity tokens and identifying information and increases the scale on which identity theft can be perpetrated. Recent research has suggested that fear of these types of crimes now matches or exceeds the fear of traditional place-based crimes, and has the potential to curtail online activities and hinder the further development of e-commerce applications. In this article, we conduct exploratory research identifying predictors of fear of cyber-identity theft and related fraudulent activities, based on the analysis of items included in the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (2007). Fear was predicted by a generalized fear of crime component and a specific Internet exposure component. Traditional predictors of fear of crime were insignificant or weak predictors, highlighting the need for further research

Criminal narrative experience: relating emotions to offence narrative roles during crime commission

A neglected area of research within criminality has been that of the experience of the offence for the offender. The present study investigates the emotions and narrative roles that are experienced by an offender while committing a broad range of crimes and proposes a model of Criminal Narrative Experience (CNE). Hypotheses were derived from the Circumplex of Emotions (Russell, 1997), Frye (1957), Narrative Theory (McAdams, 1988) and its link with Investigative Psychology (Canter, 1994). The analysis was based on 120 cases. Convicted for a variety of crimes, incarcerated criminals were interviewed and the data were subjected to Smallest Space Analysis (SSA). Four themes of Criminal Narrative Experience (CNE) were identified: Elated Hero, Calm Professional, Distressed Revenger and Depressed Victim in line with the recent theoretical framework posited for Narrative Offence Roles (Youngs & Canter, 2012). The theoretical implications for understanding crime on the basis of the Criminal Narrative Experience (CNE) as well as practical implications are discussed

Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts

Scotland, like other Western jurisdictions, has recently witnessed the development of problem-solving courts aimed at responding more effectively to issues that underlie certain types of offending behaviour. The first to be established were two pilot Drug Courts which drew upon experience of Scottish Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. In common with Drug Courts elsewhere, the Scottish pilots combined treatment, drug testing, supervision and judicial oversight. This article focuses upon the role of judicial involvement in the ongoing review of Drug Court participants’ progress, drawing upon court observation and interviews with offenders and Drug Court professionals. Drug Court dialogues were typically encouraging on the part of sheriffs, aimed at recognising and reinforcing the progress made by participants and motivating then to maintain and build upon their achievements to date, while participants were generally responsive to the positive feedback they received from the sheriffs as their orders progressed. Interactions within the Scottish Drug Courts reflect key features of procedural justice (Tyler, 1990), including ethicality, efforts to be fair and representation. By contributing to enhanced perceptions of procedural justice, Drug Court dialogues may, it is argued, increase the perceived legitimacy of the court and by so doing encourage increased compliance with treatment and desistance from crime

Preventing Violence in Seven Countries: Global Convergence in Policies

Do governments take the measures that are supported by the best scientific evidence available? We present a brief review of the situation in: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Our findings show surprisingly similar developments across countries. While all seven countries are moving towards evidence-based decision making regarding policies and programs to prevent violence, there remain a number of difficulties before this end can be achieved. For example, there continue to be few randomized controlled trials or rigorous quasi-experimental studies on aggression and violence. Results from experimental research are essential to both policy makers and researchers to determine the effectiveness of programs as well as increase our knowledge of the problem. Additionally, all noted that media attention for violence is high in their country, often leading to management by crisis with the result that policies are not based on evidence, but instead seek to appease public outrage. And perhaps because of attendant organizational problems (i.e., in many countries violence prevention was not under the guise of one particular agency or ministry), most have not developed a coordinated policy focusing on the prevention of violence and physical aggression. It is hypothesized that leaders in democratic countries, who must run for election every 4 to 6 years, may feel a need to focus on short-term planning rather than long-term preventive policies since the costs, but not the benefits for the latter would be incurred while they still served in office. We also noted a general absence of expertise beyond those within scientific circles. The need for these ideas to be more widely accepted will be an essential ingredient to real and sustaining change. This means that there must be better communication and increased understanding between researchers and policy makers. Toward those ends, the recent establishment of the Campbell Collaboration, formed to provide international systematic reviews of program effectiveness, will make these results more available and accessible to politicians, administrators and those charged with making key policy decision

False Starts, Wrong Turns and Dead Ends: Reflections on Recent Developments in Criminology

The nature and direction of criminology has changed significantly over the past two decades. The subject area has also grown exponentially and become more diverse. New fields of inquiry are opening up as new issues are added to the criminological agenda. However, at the same time there are some unwelcome developments in the discipline that impact on the orientation of the subject and which detract from its overall viability and standing. The aim of this paper is to identify these unwelcome trends in order to contribute to the development of a more critical and coherent criminology

What Australians think about crime and justice: Results from the 2007 Survey of Social Attitudes

This report explores the differences between the public view and the reality of how much recorded crime there is and of what happens to offenders after they are charged. The results are valuable as a measure of public attitudes and perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system. The report provides an analysis of the responses in the 2007 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) on crime and justice. The AuSSA is a biennial mail-out survey that provides data on key questions relating to Australians’ social attitudes and behaviours over time (Gibson et al. 2005). AuSSA 2007 consisted of a cross sectional mail-out survey completed by 8,133 adults from all Australian states and territories. Three versions of the survey were fielded with final response rates ranging from 39 to 42 percent. To produce Australian estimates the data have been weighted by education level to correct for differences in education level between survey respondents and the general population.   Key findings from the survey on perceptions of crime were: Approximately one in eight adult Australians (12.9%) views crime, drugs or terrorism as themost important issue facing Australia today. Broadcast and tabloid media provide the major source of information for most members of the public about crime and justice. Almost 80 percent of respondents rate TV, radio and newspapers as fairly or very important sources of information. A large majority of the public have inaccurate views about the occurrence of crime and the severity of sentencing. Consistent with previous Australian and international research, the Australian public perceives crime to be increasing when it isn’t, overestimates the proportion of crime that involves violence and underestimates the proportion of charged persons who go on to be convicted and imprisoned. Approximately three-quarters of Australians thought a terrorist attack in South East Asia in the 12 post-survey months was likely, with one-third thinking a terrorist attack likely in Australia. The majority of survey respondents support the government having the right to tap telephone conversations (76.7%), stop and search people in the street at random (54.2%) and to detain indefinitely without trial (56.1%) where terrorism is suspected, but do not support the torture of prisoners (59.6%).   Fear of crime Key findings from the survey on fear of crime were: The majority of Australians rate incivilities as ‘not a very big problem’, or ‘not a problem at all’ in their local area. The majority of Australians are not very worried about being a victim of a range of crimes. However, this still leaves a large minority who are ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ worried. On average, females reported higher rates of fear than males, with fear increasing as perceptions of incivilities increased. A major new fear is worry about identity theft and credit card fraud. Fear of crime is associated with decreased confidence in the criminal justice system and more punitive attitudes

The Ethics of Research with Prisoners

Research involving prisoners is a vital and invaluable source of information on crime, criminal behaviour and criminal justice. However, it is also an area fraught with ethical challenges. In this article we consider the conditions in which prison research is conducted and examine some of the ethical issues associated with interviewing prisoners. We maintain that the review and approval of prison research by Human Research Ethics Committees may in some circumstances be insufficiently informed by the dilemmas of prison based research. Formal devices such as the ‘signed informed consent form’ serve the purpose of providing an audit trail for legal purposes but potentially snare both researcher and prisoner in a set of disclosures and risks which are not in the interests of either party. We argue for a more responsive and reflexive approach where ‘ethics in practice’ complement ‘procedural ethics’ to minimise potential harms and maximise potential benefits of the research