NCJ Number
111000
Journal
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Journal Volume: 10 Issue: 1 Dated: (1987-88) Pages: 55-67
Date Published
1988
Length
13 pages
Annotation
Ambivalence and confusion surround computer crime because no universally accepted definition of computer crime exists and no agreement exists on how much computer crime is detected or what damages result from it.
Abstract
This ambivalence is reflected in the reluctance of police and prosecutors to pursue the computer criminal. The technology requires special expertise, and case preparation is time-consuming. Computer criminals often seem more clever than dangerous, and victims are likely to be large businesses rather than human beings. This ambivalence also is forcefully illustrated in the courts. Indictments often have been dismissed because the criminal act was held not to be covered by statutes under which charges were brought. In Indiana State v. McGraw, the defendant's unauthorized use of a city's computer system for personal monetary gain was held to not constitute a theft. A similar decision was reached in cases in Virginia and New York. Other issues are raised by cases involving computer vandalism, such as the insertion of logic bombs in computer programs and unauthorized use of computer bulletin boards. Such cases raise questions about the extent to which the criminal justice system should be used to deal with certain computer-related acts, how to translate certain acts into law, and the public interests served by so doing. 44 footnotes.