Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Recent phenomena like the global COVID-19 pandemic and evolving trends toward the increasing digitization of everyday and criminal activities have created unique and unprecedented challenges for the United States criminal justice system. Experts have argued that the internet has transformed criminal behavior by changing the landscape of risks and opportunities, citing creative and rapidly escalating uses of digital technology in crimes like homicide, sexual assault, mass murder, and cannibalism. ¹ These changes in risks and vulnerabilities have accelerated since 2019 due to widespread stay-at-home orders and quarantine mandates that have forced individuals and organizations to transition toward conducting many activities of daily life and business in digital environments with little to no guidance about how to navigate this transition safely. Despite predictions that crime rates would fall due to decreased social contacts resulting from stay-at-home orders and business closures, many United States cities have reported substantial increases in major crimes like homicides, aggravated assaults, and gun assaults.² Perhaps even more concerning research indicates that international and domestic terrorists are effectively using digital technology to exploit the chaos and uncertainty caused by the pandemic in numerous nefarious ways including fomenting civil rebellion and challenging trust in government agencies.³

One particularly effective tactic used by domestic terrorists during the pandemic involves the inflammation and exploitation of citizen fears of tyranny in the form of mass surveillance and violations of their rights to free speech and privacy.⁴ The transition to conducting daily life in cyberspace that was precipitated by the pandemic has contributed to a blurring of boundaries between public and private, forcing criminal justice professionals to think critically about how to balance the oft conflicting goals of safeguarding free speech while protecting citizens from threats like domestic terrorism and stranger-perpetrated homicide. The Supreme Court has thus far declined to provide adequate guidance about the types of online threat speech that are not constitutionally protected, and the guidance that the Court has communicated about standards of reasonableness and intent is murky at best.⁵ This lack of clear guidance is problematic because research

¹ M.C.A. Liem and M.E.F. Geelen, “The Interface Between Homicide and the Internet,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 48 (2019): 65.

² Ernesto Lopez and Richard Rosenfeld, “Crime, Quarantine, and the U.S. Coronavirus Pandemic,” Criminology & Public Policy 20 (2021): 401-403.

³ Arie W. Kruglanski et al., “Terrorism in Time of the Pandemic: Exploiting Mayhem,” Global Security: Health, Science and Policy 5, no. 1 (2020): 121-122.

⁴ Ibid., 123.

⁵ Alison J. Best, “Elonis v. United States: The Need to Uphold Individual Rights to Free Speech While Protecting Victims of Online True Threats,” Maryland Law Review 75, no. 4 (2016): 1128.

supports the claim that many violent crimes like stranger-related homicides, mass killings, and domestic terror attacks could be disrupted and even prevented if internet communications in domains like social media platforms were employed more effectively as tools for intelligence gathering and threat assessment. ⁶ It is clear that criminal justice professionals and researchers at multiple levels of government will need to collaborate to clarify free speech guidance and bolster safeguards, to pursue a more complete understanding about the role of digital communications in violent crime, and to improve tactical threat assessment and response capabilities.⁷

Introduction

Table of Contents