understanding the minds of criminals

understanding the minds of criminals

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions  

understanding the minds of criminals

Hacking

 

Law enforcement investigators are constantly trying to understand the minds of criminals in an attempt to see what motivates them to commit tech crimes. Some college professors are now teaching students how to hack, which is coding or a more appropriate name would be programming. Students learn how to write computer viruses and other malware which is more of an advanced programming course. Computer Information Technology (CIT) Professors teach students’ how to thwart antivirus software and how to generate anonymous email spam. Critics claim this will only encourage more criminal mischief.

1. Should colleges teach hacking? Why or why not?
2. What benefits, if any, exist from teaching students how to hack?
3. By teaching hacking, will this encourage others to have criminal mischief?
4. Who is responsible financially, morally and legally if a student hacks?
5. What precautions should schools take if they plan to offer such courses?
6. What are the pros and cons of hacking?

IMPORTANT: 

 

• Answer ALLquestions, your main/initial post should be a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs.  (200 words minimum). HINT: Answering and elaborating on  ALL  questions will assist you with accomplishing your 200 words minimum.

Discussion Board Rubric

Discussion Board Forums

 

Criteria	(A) 33-30 Outstanding	B (29-25) Proficient	C (24-23) Basic	D/F (22-0) Below Expectations
Critical Thinking	•  rich in content •  full of thought, insight, and analysis	•  substantial information •  thought, insight, and analysis has taken place	•  generally competent •  information is thin and commonplace	•  rudimentary and superficial •  no analysis or insight is displayed
Connections	Clear connections    •  to previous or current content   • to real-life situations	•  connections are made, •  not really clear or too obvious	•  limited, if any connections •  vague generalities	•  no connections are made •  off topic
Uniqueness	•  new ideas •  new connections •  made with depth and detail	•  new ideas or connections •  lack depth and/or detail	•  few, if any new ideas or connections •  rehash or summarize other postings	•  no new ideas •  “I agree with …” statement
Timeliness	•  all required postings •  early in the discussion •  throughout the discussion	•  all required postings •  some not in time for others to read & respond	•  all required postings •  most at the last minute without allowing for response time	•  some, or all, required postings missing
Stylistics	•  few grammatical or stylistic errors	•  several grammatical or stylistic errors	•  obvious grammatical or stylistic errors •  errors interfere with content	•  obvious grammatical or stylistic errors •  makes understanding impossible

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow understanding the minds of criminals

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!