00" (p. 5). She didn't mean the complaints were a fraud, but rather than the complainant had been treated fraudulently. Meanwhile, another key point Gray makes is that current studies have failed to examine: a) whether or not victims had contributed to their own victimization; b) the poor response by law enforcement to victims; they don't investigate these crimes as a rule; c) the fact that law enforcement agencies assert that the banks and credit card companies are the real victims; and d) that banks are suspicious that the "victim" is attempting to scam the banks to retrieve money from the alleged crime (Gray, 6-8).

Summary of the Article's Conclusions

The point of the research was to determine if the "victim participation theory" holds sway against the "institutionalization of laws" when it comes to blame for these unsolved identity theft incidents. Gray makes some very good points and quotes authorities and public officials in her narrative. And even though she asserts in the Abstract...

Also, the dissertation is contradictory: on page 1 she writes that "…all levels of government and law enforcement" have "worked feverishly for more than a decade" to solve the problem; but throughout the dissertation she explains that law enforcement has seemed aloof to victims. And on page 14 she explains that victims have "little faith in reporting their victimization because law enforcement and the courts do not have a stellar record of accomplishment…." (Gray, p. 14). Gray has delved into a subject that certainly needs investigation, but albeit this is just her introduction, her research appears to be lacking in consistency and believability.
Works Cited

Gray, K. (2010). Internet Identity Theft: An Insight into Victimology and Law Enforcement

Response. Capella…