“Cyber Crime in Pakistan; Detection and Punishment Mechanism” addresses improvement of public health and safety policies by focusing on enhancing knowledge about cybercrime, women victimization, the pattern of time spent on the internet, sexual harassment and cyber- bullying and the effect of socio- demographic factors on cybercrime. A quantitative, self-selected research study designed by the researcher and utilizing a voluntary, anonymous internet survey consisting of open and closed-ended questions targeted students attending large universities in Pakistan (N=400), based on Routine Activity Theory (RAT). The results were analyzed through SPSS via directing descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, and regression analysis to confirm the validity and internal consistency of data and verification of the hypotheses. Results depicted women represent the largest group impacted by cyber abuse. Single women, young adults, and employed students demonstrate increased rates of victimization. Frequent usage of social media may account for increased victimization for women. Time spent online and deficient knowledge of cyber protection measures are positively correlated with digital victimization. Respondents report on inadequate effective and affordable cyber protection and ineffective responses by agencies to cybercrime. Based on the results garnered, and supported by Public Policy Theory, Cybersecurity policies have been proposed to Pakistan’s government.
Abrams, L. S. (2010). Sampling ‘Hard to Reach’ Populations in Qualitative Research: The Case of Incarcerated Youth. *Qualitative Social Work*, 9(4), 536–550.
Al-Jazeera. (2016). Cyber Harassment in Pakistan. How women are fighting back. The Stream. Digital Rights Foundation.
Alvi, M. H. (2016). A Manual for Selecting Sampling Techniques in Research.
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2018). The future of well-being in a tech-saturated world.
Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard to involve Internet users. *International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction*, 16(2), 185–210.
Arfi, N., & Agarwal, S. (2014). Knowledge of cyber-crime among elderly across gender. *International Journal for Advance Research in Engineering and Technology*, 2(2), 7–9.
Arshad Khan, E. (2018). The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016: An Analysis. *LUMS LJ*, 5, 117.
Broadhurst, R., Grabosky, P., Alazab, M., Bouhours, B., & Chon, S. (2014). An analysis of the nature of groups engaged in cyber-crime. *International Journal of Cyber Criminology*, 8(1), 1–20.
Bryan-Low, C. (2012). Hackers-for-hire are easy to find. *Wall Street Journal*.
Chao, C. M., & Yu, T. K. (2017). Associations among different internet access time, gender, and cyberbullying behaviors in Taiwan’s adolescents. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 8, 1104.
Churchill, G. A., Brown, T. J., & Suter, T. A. (1996). Basic marketing research.
Crowther, G. A. (2017). National Defense and the Cyber Domain (pp. 83–97).
Donner, C. M. (2016). The gender gap and cybercrime: An examination of college students’ online offending. *Victims & Offenders*, 11(4), 556–577.
Duggan, M. (2014). Online Harassment. *Pew Research Center: Internet, Science and Tech*.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2016).
Foundation, D. R. (2017). Cyber Harassment Helpline One-year Report December.
Gluschke, G., Hakki, M. C., Macori, M., & Leszczyna, R. (2018). Cyber security policies and critical infrastructure protection.
Gordon, S., & Ford, R. (2006). On the definition and classification of cybercrime. *Journal in Computer Virology*, 2(1), 13–20.
Helweg‐Larsen, K., Schütt, N., & Larsen, H. B. (2012). Predictors and protective factors for adolescent Internet victimization: Results from a 2008 nationwide Danish youth survey. *Acta Paediatrica*, 101(5), 533–539.
Huff, R., Desilets, C., & Kane, J. (2010). National public survey on white-collar crime.
Jamil, Z. (2006). Cyber Law. 50th Anniversary Celebrations of the Supreme Court of Pakistan International Judicial Conference On, 11–14.
Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2013). Online harassment in context: Trends from three youth internet safety surveys. *Psychology of Violence*, 3(1), 53.
Kemp, S. (2018). Digital in 2018: World’s Internet Users Pass the 4 Billion Mark. January, 30.
Khalil, B. (2020). Cybercrime effecting banking sector/economy of Pakistan. *Modern Diplomacy*. Published In.
Khan, R. (2016). Controversial cyber-crime bill approved by NA.
Kitschelt, H. (1986). Four theories of public policy making and fast breeder reactor development. *International Organization*, 40(1), 65–104.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. *Educational and Psychological Measurement*, 30(3), 607–610.
Lavigne, C. (2008). Mirrorshade Women: Feminism and Cyberpunk at the Turn of the Twenty-first Century.
Lewis, J. (2018). Economic Impact of Cybercrime.
Malik, M. A. (2018). Preventing Cybercrime: A Criminological Perspective.
McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013). Cyber-crime: A review of the evidence. Summary of key findings and implications. *Home Office Research Report*, 75.
Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2019). Digital feminist activism: Girls and women fight back against rape culture.
Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. *Annals of Spiru Haret University. Economic Series*, 17(4), 59–82.
Morgan, R. E., & Kena, G. (2017). Criminal victimization.
Morgan, S. (2017). Cybercrime Report.
Navneet, K. (2018). INTRODUCTION OF CYBER CRIME AND ITS TYPE. *IRJCS: International Research Journal of Computer Science*, 5(8), 435–439.
Nurse, J. R. (2018). Cybercrime and you: How criminals attack and the human factors that they seek to exploit.
Oksanen, A., & Keipi, T. (2013). Young people as victims of crime on the internet: A population-based study in Finland. *Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies*, 8(4), 298–309.
Peciuriene, J. (2017). Cyber violence is growing threat, especially for women and girls. News Article on Topics Digital Agenda, Youth and Violence. Published On.
Porche, I. R. (2019). Fighting and Winning the Undeclared Cyberwar. *The Rand Blog*. June, 24, 2019.
Poulsen, K. P. (2018). The Decades’ 10 most dastardly cybercrimes.
Qarar, S. (2018). Cybercrime reports hit a record high in 2018: FIA. *Dawn News Report*.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in business and management: an introduction to process and method.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students.
Sheikh, H. (2013). Pakistan internet use survey 2013.
Smith, R. G. (2010). Identity theft and fraud. In *Handbook of Internet Crime* (pp. 273–301).
Smith, R. G., Cheung, R. C. C., & Lau, L. Y. C. (2015). Introduction: Cybercrime Risks and Responses—Eastern and Western Perspectives. In *Cybercrime Risks and Responses* (pp. 1–9).
Statista, A. (2018). Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 1st quarter 2018.
Usman, M. (2016). Cyber Crimes: A case study of legislation in Pakistan in the light of jurisdiction. A dissertation to fulfill the corporate law degree.
Waghole, S. N. (2019). Cyber Crime Statistics. *Journal of the Gujarat Research Society*, 21(14s), 518–523.
Waldo, J., & Lin, H. S. (n.d.). & Privacy and information technology in a digital age: Executive summary. *Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality*, 2(1), 5–18.
Weijer, S. G., & Leukfeldt, E. R. (2017). Big five personality traits of cybercrime victims. *Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking*, 20(7), 407–412.
Weijer, S. G., Leukfeldt, R., & Bernasco, W. (2019). Determinants of reporting cybercrime: A comparison between identity theft, consumer fraud, and hacking. *European Journal of Criminology*, 16(4), 486–508.
Zeviar-Geese, G. (2005). The state of the law on cyber jurisdiction and cybercrime on the internet. California Pacific School of Law. *Gonzaga Journal of International Law*, 1, 1997–1998.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
