There is a limitation in the forensic and social / legal exploration of information technology aspects and that is the possible cause of the limitations of the jurisdictions of the computer crime legislation, creating the insufficiency in the fulfillment of its purpose (Tonry 2009 p. 20-350). The legislation approaches the infringement of the social precepts of technology without any consideration of social remedies. The use of police in regulation of operations is limiting because they may not have the capacity for gauging the extent of computer damage. It is logical considering the sensitivity of pro-social individuals, and their possibility of taking up their responsibilities. Social norms revolve around consideration of others and create a sense of mindfulness and consideration of activities (Humphreys 2007 p. 257).

Requirements for the success of the Computer Misuse legislation

That is an aspect, which the current Computer Misuse legislation fails to provide. The government must understand that the achievement of fairness in computer usage must accompany freedom of its access. Any approach designed for curbing cyber crime must put into considerations measurers, which can maintain the neutrality of information access without any compromise on users. Therefore, there is the need for a better understanding of social causal factors of computer crimes. This should put into account all forms of crimes for the realization of an enjoyment of computer networks without having to code its features (Lichtblau 2008 p.66).

As technical approaches take center stage in curbing computer crimes, there ought to be consideration to social resilience during policymaking (Reiner 2010 p.15). Policymakers must study the generational trends of computer crimes to understand the minds of criminals, and provide amicable solutions without infringing of neutrality and freedom of computer users. According to Wall (2007 p.20), there are commonalities in cyber crimes, which can help in predicting the possible future crimes and working way ahead of criminals in curbing the offence instead of depending on the restrictive coding efforts of the computer misuse legislation.

The common trends noted in the past are three. The first one is the e-jemmies generation, who committed computer crimes within the discretion of computer systems. The second generational trend was the network crime, which focused their activities in the exploitation of connections by remotely inflicting harm. The third generation is the distribution criminals. These ones focus on the creation of distribution channels and automation of harm through remote operations. By understanding such trends, there comes a fourth predictable possibility of computer crime known as ambient intelligence of technologies. This is because of the increasing internet usage, creating the possibility of exploitation of new technologies by people (Assange & Dreyufus 2011 p. 23-350).

Understanding such trends can reveal the possibilities of upcoming criminal trends in a broad way, which can help in curbing any future developing trends way ahead of any harm. This is because it is easier dealing with the social aspect of criminals given commonalities existent in their characteristics across generations (Gogolin & Jones 2010 p. 131-139). Further, there is the need for...

It is necessary to understand the social precepts of offenders to be able to come up with strategies, which resolve the impending issue instead of creating more harm (Foltz & Renwick 2011 p. 119-125).
Conclusion

It is worthy understanding all possible reasons, which lead to computer crimes for the legislation to pass as a crime limiter. Otherwise, the cited limitations like the restrictions of technical coding, elaborative interpretations and language of the stature hinders the set objectives for defining a new era of computer safety. The government must understand the need for allocation of funds for further research on the matter. Also important is the need for collaboration with foreign governments to aid the prevention of the crime in a wholesome manner. It is only through this that the current computer legislation will manage to fit within its purpose instead of imposition of suctions as experienced currently (Assange & Dreyufus 2011 p. 56).