Also known as research on the victims of different crimes, victimology is believed to be one of the youngest criminological disciplines. Here, victims are required to describe their involvement in a certain crime and identify themselves properly (Daigle, 2012). One of the biggest areas that are currently of interest to victimology is cyber-crime. Even though victimology is not custom-designed to deal with cybercrimes, it is evident that the new generation of criminals has to be pursued and punished (Arntfield, 2015). The target population outlined by the author is the majority of people who are susceptible to being victimized online. Some of the authors describe cybercrime victimization as a complex process that revolves around several lifestyle activities.
At the same time, the experts dealing with cybercrimes and cyber-crime victimization came to an important conclusion – there are two main types of victims when it comes to cybercrimes: those who have an unremitting role in the whole criminal process and those who are involved in wrongdoings only indirectly (Arntfield, 2015). There is also a small category of victims that do not fall into any of the categories described above. Similar to the classic concept of victimization, three key factors are contributing to cyber-crime victimization. Arntfield (2015) used meta-analysis to gather the data and learn about the factors mentioned above. These include the provocation, the ability to choose a pertinent victim, and the lack of protection displayed by the latter. Using these factors, we can describe the ideas that are included in Arntfield’s (2015) article and discuss them in detail.
First of all, he accurately dwells on the concept of roles of victims in the process of cyber victimization. In the age of technological revolution, we should not overlook the impact of victims on the development of such things as cyberbullying and cyber victimization. Digital attacks are majorly contingent on the victim’s model of behavior because the latter may serve as both a prognosticator and a facilitator of cybercrime (Arntfield, 2015). The article provides us with acceptable information regarding the existing research on the subject.
Arntfield (2015) concludes that more interdisciplinary approaches are required to develop a new cybervictimological framework to align cyber activities with the canons of a classic victimological context. The main strength of the article is the author of the article describing one of the existing frameworks that are based on the routine activities inherent in the criminological theory. Nonetheless, when Arntfield (2015) explains that different routine activities that are performed by the potential victims online are the biggest predictors of future cyberbullying activities, there may be a sign of bias. The reason for this is the fact that the author of the article sees them as the key contributors to the concept of victimization because the model of anti-social behavior is commonly tolerated within the online environment. The absence of appropriate supervision also plays a rather big role in victimology.
Of course, cyber-victimology is a relatively productive tool when it comes to predicting individual behavior and personality types. The main weakness of the article is the lack of information regarding the development of technologies around us that leads to a situation where the most complex offender profiles cannot be spotted for a rather long time. Regardless, we should be capable of dealing with the challenges that transpire due to the continuous technological modernization of the world around us. A sense of impunity pushes wrongdoers into new cybercrimes (Arntfield, 2015). Even sexual and relation addiction found their way online and can be met here and there daily (O’Sullivan, 2013). The author’s points are relatively persuasive, so we need to learn how to interact with each other, but the price of such interactions seems to be a bit too high for those individuals who are prone to displaying their potential to become a victim of cybercrimes.
References
Arntfield, M. (2015). Towards a cybervictimology: Cyberbullying, routine activities theory, and the anti-sociality of social media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 40(3), 371-388. Web.
Daigle, L. E. (2012). Victimology: A text/reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Sullivan, C. S. (2013). Sexual violence victimization of women, men, youth, and children. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, & S. Herman (Eds.), Victims of crime (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.