Cyber offending in module 5 is ranked within 7 motives. These seven motives for cyber offending are based on psychological theory, psychodynamic theory, cognitive theory, neutralization theory, behavioral theory, personality theory, and reinforcement sensitivity. In the following I will be expressing my thoughts on how each motive relates directly to cyber offending, where they’re ranked (1-most to 7-least) and how they make sense. 

Psychodynamic theory and cyber offending go hand to hand greatly.  I believe this to be ranked as number one, being that it makes the most sense. In this theory, there are studies showing early signs such as early life experiences that influence behavior. I believe that it makes the most sense because most cyber offenders do not just become one as an adult without any prior experience that may lead to it.  For example, a child stealing their parents phone and logging them out of their accounts.  This is something so small, but it does teach a child that they’re capable of doing so.  

Another example shown in module 5 is cyber bullying.  This motive alone teaches people to seek revenge.  Vengeance is a strong emotion and need for an individual. If someone is being bullied for years and unable to physically defend themselves, they may find alternative ways to do so.  Learning about hacking is a secret weapon they could use to get back at those they don’t like. 

Ranked as number two in motives would be the psychological theory in cyber offending.  Much like the psychodynamic theory, psychological is all in the mind and can have early signs. The difference between this and the previous theory is that the psychological theory goes beyond individual motives and can have a little bit of each theory. The concepts that are plugged into this area present systematic phenomenons. I believe that this is still a top reason because we are overall controlled by our minds.  

Number three of motives in my opinion would be the behavioral theory. Behavior is certainly learned. Rather that be by deviant peers, school, family or online.  Ideas come from all around us, and we as humans are constantly learning.  In criminal justice there is “the bad apple theory.” This theory suggests that one can be a quite decent human. But, if mixed with the wrong crowd, one starts to adapt behaviors they shouldn’t. I believe these theories make sense and are motives.  They may not always be our own motive but any bad motive that involves us is good enough in the courts eyes. 

Number four of motives would be reinforcement sensitivity.  Surprisingly, I saw myself ranking this as number one.  I say this because there is a lot of money that could come with criminal offending.  Criminal hacking is not good, but that does not necessarily mean that every hacker on earth is a terrible person.  Some may just be doing a “job” to earn some income.  Because of how hard hacking is to an average person, it’s not so hard to believe that those who do know how to hack can be bribed into doing something they normally wouldn’t. 

Ranked as number 5 of motives that make sense other cyber offending would be neutralization theory.  In this theory, an individual may be in denial or justifying their actions.  “It’s not as bad as murder.” “It’s just online, it’s not real.” These thoughts alone are good enough motives to make someone go through with their own bad ideas.  

Number six, cognitive theory. This theory explains how individuals think and process information.  Much like neutralization theory, if one does not think it’s “too bad,” it may just be enough to go through a bad idea. Especially if they connect this to previous theories such as psychodynamic behavior with bullying. “They deserve it.” 

Lastly, ranked as number seven is personality theory. I don’t believe that one’s personality effects 

their motive as much as the rest of these motives.  Being a “Grey hat” switching between legal and illegal hacking is a great example why.