NCJ Number
208725
Date Published
October 2004
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This study explored whether new criminal sanctions applied to high tech crime offenders are legally and practically justifiable as appropriate punishments.
Abstract
In recent years, courts within the United States, Europe, and Australia have sentenced high tech crime offenders to sanctions that require the offender’s computer to be forfeited or that place various restrictions on computer usage. Some courts have imposed sanctions that require the offender’s computer activities to be monitored by a probation officer or require the installation of filtering software on the offender’s computer. The current study examined 240 cases of high tech crimes committed in Australasia, Europe, and the United States. Cases were identified from searches of legal databases, media reports, and secondary sources. The analysis presented here was based on the 33 cases that involved the use of criminal forfeiture or restriction-of-use orders. In the United States, it has been contended that sanctions involving the imposition of restrictions on the use of computers or the monitoring of computer activities infringes on the first amendment rights of the offender. However, the analysis suggests that the forfeiture of computer equipment used in criminal activities is a clear case of proportionality because of the link established between the punishment and the means by which the offense was committed. Although these types of sanctions have not been numerous enough to establish their effectiveness in reducing high tech crimes, there are a number of logical barriers to their long-term utility as criminal sanctions. Among these barriers are the ability of the offender to use public computers and the difficulties inherent in enforcing restriction-of-use orders. Future research should focus on how forfeiture and restriction-of-use orders impact individuals other than the offender, such as the offender’s family members. Table, references