ASSESSMENT 2: SHORT ANSWER RESPONSES

1013CCJ: Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice

Griffith University

Student name:
Student number: Click or tap here to enter text.

Tutor name:

Course mode: Online

Instructions: Respond to TWO of the following short answer questions. Type

or paste your responses into the spaces provided. Refer to the assessment
instructions on Learning@Griffith for further guidance.
Module 5 Short-Answer (Street Crime and Violence): Street crimes occupy a great deal of
public attention and police resources. Some research suggests that these non-serious
offences (things like public intoxication, vandalism, and street drug dealing or
prostitution) have more serious consequences for individuals, businesses, and
communities. What kinds of flow-on effects might street crime problems create? Do these
consequences warrant stronger efforts to combat street crimes? (250 words, +/- 10%)

Click or tap here to enter text.

Module 6 Short-Answer (White Collar and Internet Crime): The ‘dark figure of crime’
is generally larger for white collar and internet crime compared to ‘conventional’
crime. What are some of the reasons we know less about corporate crime than
traditional crime? Is this a necessary feature of the nature of white-collar crime and
internet crime or are there better solutions to help us understand (and thus address)
these offences? (250 words, +/- 10%)

White collar crimes are unlawful or unethical actions that violate fiduciary duties of
public trust executed by people or organisations in the course of business performed with
the aim of personal or organisational gain.
The explanations for large dark figures of crime in white collar and internet crime
are larger in comparison to conventional crime is because of several factors. Firstly,
corporate crime is generally committed by a corporation or by an individuals acting on
behalf of a corporation and victims often aren’t aware this crime is happening to them and
this may include offences such breaches of market integrity, misleading or deceptive
conduct and unconscionable conduct. While internet crime is a strong part of cybercrime
with identity theft, internet scams and cyberstalking being the major categories of internet
crime. And Conventional crimes are more established, illegal behaviours that many people
think of as crime such as robbery, murder and drug trafficking.
Reasons for corporate crimes having a large dark figure is because they are usually
not reported to the police, instead they are handled by third party regulatory agencies.
Because police and law enforcement are not engaged these cases, corporate crimes data is
often not passed on to be officially reported in the police records or even passed on to other
regulatory agencies, thus adding to the dark figure of crime. Identifying the correct
regulator to report to may also be difficult as there are many different regulators for
different offences adding to unreported crimes.
Internet crimes add significantly to the of dark figure crimes. The trouble with
internet crime is that many victims are unaware that they have been victimised. Personal
information entered on the internet is easily accessible for criminals to exploit without
people knowing. In instances where people recognised their victimisation, the proportion
that reported those crimes are very small because people either feel embarrassed, see no
reason to report or do not know who to report to.
Reasons for the lack of knowledge around corporate crime compared to
conventional crime is because this type of crime is complex and hard to understand with
victims and perpetrators often being unclear
As the dark figure of crime will constantly be large in white collar and internet
crime because of their nature, finding ways to better understand and deal with these crimes
is important. Intelligent regulation may help avert, identify and discourage white collar
crime. Increasing public awareness on these crimes should be encouraged to educate
people on how to deal and know what to do with these crimes. Additionally, regulatory
agencies must interact and work together to report data to the police.
Module 7 Short-Answer (Psychological Theories of Crime): King hits (sucker punches)
are often discussed with bewilderment; "How could somebody do such a thing?",
people wonder. What psychological theory might best explain this type of offence? (250
words, +/- 10%)

Psychology, as a field, is a large contributor to the sources of aggression, particularly

severe or frequent criminal violence such as king hits. The psychological theory that most
accurately explains King Hits could be the Behavioural Theory. This theory insists that
human behaviour, including violent behaviour, is the result of interaction with the social
environment. This theory explains that individuals are not born with a sadistic nature but
instead they learn to act and think in violent manners as a result of their everyday
conditioning. For example, a child surrounded by a violent behaviour or living in a violent
neighbourhood, are more likely to observe those actions and adapt them as family and
friends are largely influential on young children and can severely alter their growth and
behaviour. Behaviourists note that there are considerations which aid in the production of
violence. These include stressful situations like a threat or perhaps an assault, aggressive
actions obtained through watching others and believing that violence is socially acceptable
for reducing frustration or boosting self-esteem. All these elements may be applicable to
explain someone who may be involved with a king hit. This theory can also support why
some people act in a certain way and why their way of responding to danger or dispute is
to use violence as a way of protecting themselves as a result of a distressful experience
from their past. Weather the individual was conditioned to become violent or they
encountered a traumatic experience could all be reasons for them to behave in violently
and perform acts such as a king hit.
Module 8 Short-Answer (Sociological Theories of Crime): Community health clinics
and not-for-profit early learning centres are examples of social services that have crime
prevention dividends. From a sociological and criminological perspective, how can we
explain these effects? (250 words, +/- 10%)

Click or tap here to enter text.