Using Tittle's control balance theory to understand computer crime and deviance

Abstract

This article studies Tittle's control balance theory that bases criminal and deviant behaviour on the desire to increase levels of autonomy and uses this to deconstruct Internet crime. It suggests that anonymity and deindividuation are facets of opportunity and means of reducing the likelihood that normal constraints will interfere and questions their position as causative elements of computer mediated crime. It suggests that the control balance theory can help to understand why there may be high levels of computer crime and why individuals who might refrain from deviance in the real world may participate in deviant behaviour on-line. Finally, there are tentative suggestions for policy initiatives as well as a recognition that both these and the application of control balance in this area would benefit from further analysis.

Keywords:

• Internet crime
• control balance

Notes

1. See, for example, the Computer Misuse Act 2000, c.18 which dealt with hacking, etc. and s.84(3)(c) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 c.33 which ensures that child pornography viewed via computers does not escape a criminal sanction.

2. See, for example, Section 41(1) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, c.43 increased sentencing of child pornography partly as a response to greater access via the Internet.

3. See, for example, Sentencing Advisory Panel, ‘The Panel's Advice to the Court of Appeal on Offences Involving Child Pornography’ (August 2002), available at http://www.sentencing-guidelines. gov.uk/docs/advice_child_porn.pdf (last accessed 10 March 2008).

4. See, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, c.23, which delivered most of the necessary powers.

5. See the initiatives led by the Serious Organised Crime Agency: http://www.soca.gov.uk/ (last accessed 10 March 2008). The Agency is an amalgamation of both the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Hi-Tech Computer Unit.

6. See Manuela Barrero and Naomi Ellemers, ‘The Impact of Anonymity and Group Identification on Progroup Behavior in Computer-Mediated Groups’, Small Group Research 35, no. 6 (2002): 590–610; William H. Cooper, R. Breant Gallupe, Sandra Pollard and Jana Cadsby, ‘Some Liberating Effects of Anonymous Electronic Brainstorming’, Research 29 (1998): 147–78; Karen M. Douglas and Craig McGarty, ‘Identifiability and Self-Presentation: Computer-Mediated Communication and Intergroup Interaction’, British Journal of Social Psychology 40 (2001): 399–416; K.E. Greenwood, ‘Deindividuation v Individuation on the Computer’, Paper presented at 25th International Congress of Psychology, Brussels July 1992 (abstract found in International Journal of Psychology. 27 (1992): 305); Jonathan Siegel, V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler and T. McGuire, ‘Group Processes in Computer-Mediated Communication’, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 37 (1986): 157–87; Stephen Reicher, Russell Spears and Tom Postmes, ‘A Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Phenomena’, European Review of Social Psychology 6 (1995): 161–97; Bruce A. Reinig and Roberto J. Mejias, ‘The Effects of National Culture and Anonymity on Flaming and Criticalness in GSS-Supported Discussions’, Small Group Research 35 (6) (2004): 698–723; Diane Rowland, ‘Anonymity, Privacy and Cyberspace’, Paper presented at 15th BILETA Conference on ‘Electronic Datasets and Access to Legal Information’, University of Warwick, 2000, http://www.bileta.ac.uk/pages/Conference%20Papers.aspx (last accessed 10 March 2008); Diane Rowland, ‘Privacy, Freedom of Expression and CyberSLAPPs: Fostering Anonymity on the Internet?’ Paper presented at 18th BILETA Conference on ‘Information in the Online Environment’, University of Warwick, 2003, http://www.bileta.ac.uk/pages/Conference%20Papers.aspx (last accessed 10 March 2008); Diane Rowland, ‘Griping, Bitching and Speaking Your Mind: Defamation and Free Expression on the Internet’, Pennsylvania State Law Review Symposium Issue 110, no. 3 (2006): 519–538; Joseph S. Valacich, Alan R. Dennis and J.F. Nunamaker, ‘Group Size and Anonymity Effects on Computer-Mediated Idea Generation’, Small Group Research 23 (1992): 49–73; Katherine S. Williams, ‘On-Line Anonymity and Freedom of Expression and Privacy’, Pennsylvania State Law Review Symposium Issue 110, no. 3 (2006): 687–701.

7. L. Festinger, A. Pepitone and T. Newcomb, ‘Some Consequences of Deindividuation in a Group’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47, no. 3 (1952): 382–90.

8. See Stephen D. Reicher, ‘Crowd Behaviour as Social Action’, in Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, ed. John C. Turner, Michael A. Hogg, P.J. Oaks, Stephen D. Reicher and M. S Wetherell (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987); and Reicher et al., ‘A Social Identity Model’.

9. See Tom Postmes, Russell Spears and Martin Lea, ‘The Formation of Group Norms in Computer-Mediated Communication’, Human Communication Research 26, no. 3 (2000): 341–71.

10. For a fuller discussion of these, see Williams (2006).

11. Charles R. Tittle, Control Balance: Towards a General Theory of Deviance (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995), 124.

12. See p. 333 of J.J. Savelsberg, ‘Human Nature and Social Control in Complex Society: A Critique of Charles Tittle's Control Balance’, Theoretical Criminology 3, no. 3 (1997): 331–38.

13. Charles R. Tittle, ‘Continuing the Discussion of Control Balance’, Theoretical Criminology 3 (1999): 344.

14. Tittle, Control Balance; and Charles R. Tittle, ‘Refining Control Balance Theory’, Theoretical Criminology 8, no. 4 (2004): 395–428.

15. See Sheldon Stryker, Symbolic Interactionism (Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin-Cummins, 1980), though in certain cultures deviance may be a positive, J. Katz, Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil (New York: Basic Books, 1988).

16. Michael R. Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 213.

17. Tittle, ‘Refining Control Balance Theory’, 410.

18. Tittle likens this to general strain theories such as Ronald R. Akers, Deviant Behaviour: A Social Learning Approach, 3rd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1985); Ronald R. Akers, Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1998); and Ronald R. Akers and Gary F. Jensen, eds., Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime. Vol. 11: Advances in Criminological Theory, ed. Freda Adler and William S. Laufer (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2003); the process is also akin to Felson's impression management (Richard B. Felson, ‘Aggression aws Impression Management’, Social Psychology 41, no. 3 (1978): 205–13; and Richard B. Felson, ‘Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and Violence’, Social Psychology Quarterly 45, no. 4 (1982): 245–54).

19. Ronald V. Clarke and Richard B. Felson, Routine activity and Routine Choice (London: Transaction, 1993) and Richard B. Felson, Crime and Everyday life, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1997).

20. H Grasmick and R. Bursik, ‘Conscience, Significant Others and Rational Choice: Extending the Deterrent Model’, Law and Society Review 24 (1990): 837–61.

21. Akers, Deviant Behaviour; Ronald R. Akers, ‘Rational Choice, Deterrence, and Social Learning Theory in Criminology: The Path not Taken’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 81 (1990): 653–76; Akers, Social Learning and Social Structure; Akers and Jensen, Social Learning Theory; and Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory (New York: General Learning Press, 1977).

22. As seen in Gottfredson and Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime.

23. Katz, Seductions of Crime.

24. Tittle, ‘Refining Control Balance Theory’, 415.

25. Rowland, ‘Griping, Bitching and Speaking Your Mind’.

26. The Council of Europe has directed Member States to take ‘… full account of the differences between services delivered by different means and people's expectations of these services’ (Council of Europe (2005) Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the Information Society CM(2005)56 final, 13 May 2005, para. 1(1), available from www.coe.int (http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id = 849061, see especially part II: 1 (last accessed 10 March 2008). This suggests more recognition of group norms in on-line environments than often is permitted in the real world.

27. Tittle, ‘Refining Control Balance Theory’, 408, 409 and 413.

28. Katz, Seductions of Crime.

29. See F. Auburn, ‘Usenet News and the Law’, Web Journal of Current Legal Issues 1 (1995), http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles1/auburn1.html and R. Potter, ‘Flamers, Trolls and Bloggers – are ISPs and Webhosts at risk from Online Anarchy?’, Journal of the New South Wales Society for Computers and the Law 57 (2004), www.nswscl.org.au/journal/57/Potter.html

30. Katz, Seductions of Crime.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Katherine S. Williams

Email: [email protected]