<u>Social disorganization theory</u> can help explain crimes committed by individuals who develop and spread computer viruses.
Social process theories like differential reinforcement theory and learning theory can be used to explain why people who create and propagate computer viruses commit crimes. The ability to write a virus requires a certain amount of technical proficiency. Learning how to write the code required to create a virus is frequently part of this process. Many people learn these skills through message boards, or distance learning instead of in-person instruction, which is the case in the majority of cases. This kind of action also has positive reinforcements, such as the thrill of spreading the virus and infecting systems, "admiration" from one's peer group, and potential financial gains.
According to this theoretical viewpoint, criminal behaviour may be related to missed possibilities for respectable pursuits. As a result, those who engage in this kind of criminal activity could be referred to as "innovators" because they employ unethical methods to achieve the conventional aim of success, which is typically quantified in terms of financial gain. It's interesting to note that Merton first used this theoretical viewpoint to explain why legitimate chances for those who are primarily from the lower class were obstructed.
To learn more about Social disorganization theory here,
brainly.com/question/6346997
#SPJ4
Answer:
it provides unbiased views and resolution to evidence presented in a case in a court of law. If jury duty was not mandatory there would be no jurors or at-most very few.
Political scientists have generally found that justices' decisions are most closely tied to<u> </u><u>their political ideologies.</u>
It is a frequent misconception that Supreme Court justices' voting decisions primarily reflect their beliefs, principles, or personal policy preferences.
However, this supposition has never been sufficiently verified using objective assessments of the ideological beliefs of the justices, that is, assessments that are not based on their votes on the Court.
We derive independent and trustworthy measures of the values of every Supreme Court justice from Earl Warren to Anthony Kennedy using content analytic approaches.
The attitudinal paradigm is firmly supported by the close correlation between these values and the justices' votes.
To learn more about Political Scientists here
brainly.com/question/10369837
#SPJ4
All know is that, join is where your adding people in like joining something and die is where your no longer living.
Sorry if this doesn't help
B. Fertile. i believe. no promises
