ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses penology in cyber-crime victimisation cases. The EU Convention on Cybercrime, 2001 has recognised certain types of cyber-crimes. As discussed above, these offences have expanded in nature. There are multiple types of hate crimes, economic crimes, data thefts, sexual offences, attacks on protected systems of the government, etc. Offenders are not always adults. Children are also committing offences in cyberspace. There are organised gangs expanding in all jurisdictions. Many cyber-crime offences have deeply impacted the physical safety of the victims. Adolescents and young adults have committed suicide because they had been ‘instructed’ to kill themselves as part of an online game. Online platforms hosting the ‘games’ did not want to take liability for the deaths in real life. But they cannot escape their liability for not being able to monitor such activities on their own platforms. What sort of punishments may be awarded to them? Can the victims be benefited by such punishments? In practical terms, there are no uniform answers to such questions because the courts are still becoming accustomed to ever-evolving patterns of criminalities in cyberspace. Existing domestic laws have punishments for some common patterns of crime victimisation. These punishments include jail terms and fines. Certain countries have included no-contact orders or prohibitory orders in their penal code provisions related to cyber-crime cases. But these forms of punishments may vary according to the age of the offenders and impact of the offences on the victims, as well as on society at large. Courts need to be innovative while awarding punishment for cyber-crime offences. They should include remedial measures for the victims as well. Above all, the courts should be adhering to the principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence for healing of the victims. Penology for cyber-crimes should be necessarily victim-oriented. Reformation of the offenders is considered to be a permanent feature of penology. But penology for cyber-crime victimisation must also be concerned with the virtual avatars of the defendants and the victims. Anonymity is a challenge for control of cyber-crime. Courts must consider roping in the tech companies to implement the prohibitory orders. Further, the courts must also set guidelines for community sentences for adolescents and young adults in cyber-crime cases. Finally, penology for cyber-crimes must also include rehabilitation programs for offenders, and these should include de-addiction from violent content, porn content, etc. All these issues are discussed in this chapter.
