A teenager’s humiliation goes viral. Deepfake is a form of identity theft in which an individual takes on the identity of an unsuspecting professional. A survivor re-experiences their trauma whenever their name is searched. Now, where bruises and broken bones were once considered the most serious, they pale in comparison to the wounds that may be digital but just as deep as the ones that justice once fought to heal. The digital age has transformed not just the way people communicate and do business, but the way people commit crimes and experience victimization. Cybercrime knows no borders. It is exponentially faster than the law and leaves its victims behind, visibly, soundlessly, helplessly. As courts, psychologists, forensic scientists, and lawmakers struggle to come to terms with these new facts of life, a glaring absence exists: what does it mean to grasp, solve, and render justice for trauma connected to the digital age?

Defining Digital Trauma: The Shift from Physical to Psychological Harm

As the locus of existence and transaction moves from the physical space to the digital space, so does the actual harm inflicted by a crime also undergo significant changes. To better understand this evolution, we have to define what Digital Trauma is, really. Digital Trauma includes psychological, emotional, and physiological effects felt by victims of Cybercrimes such as revenge porn, cyberbullying, doxing, and identity theft, among others, including the dissemination of deepfakes. Unlike mainstream crime, many of these crimes result in harm that is ongoing, not perceptible to others, but multiplied by the processing mechanics of social media, the potential for ongoing threat, and the absence of any power to control one’s online digital footprints.

Consider the case of a journalist whose AI creations in front of a deepfake video went viral in 2018.^[i] While the video remains refuted and verifiably proven inaccurate, it would constantly resurface on platforms newly removed from its previous iteration. For her, not only was her justice denied, but it was digitally denied. How technology can convert trauma into a closed cycle, she knew from experience.

Evidence suggests that victims of online harassment can suffer from PTSD-like symptoms, anxiety, and depression. A study carried out by BMC Public Health found that there was a significant positive correlation between symptoms of PTSD and experiences of cyberbullying, with exclusion and disregardment proving to be as traumatic as overt threats.^[ii]

And to top things off, a report released by the UK Department for Digital Culture, Media & Sport found that victims of online trolling often reported feeling increased emotional distress, which may lead to feelings of embarrassment and put them at greater risk of being affected by clinical or subclinical symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The study also mentioned some behavioral effects like abuse of drugs, feelings of shame, humiliation, low self-esteem and paranoia, withdrawal from social life, and negative effects on personal relationships. ^[iii]

These findings call attention to the pervasive and lingering nature of digital trauma, challenging the traditional justice system to acknowledge, quantify, and mitigate harm that doesn’t leave visible wounds. Not that women and marginalized communities aren’t disproportionately affected by such trauma; making harm online isn’t just a legal concern, but one that is gendered and intersectional.

Victimology Reimagined: From Physical Evidence to Digital Traces

If trauma can exist without the wounds of the flesh being apparent, then justice must look beyond the wounds of the flesh. This new definition starts within victimology itself. Traditionally, victimology is concerned with physical abuse and face-to-face interactions, but this will have to change to deal with the realities of cyber victimism. In the age of Cybercrime, the discipline must account for anonymization and magnitude, the PTSD of cultural betrayal, and the special harms of deepfake and content created by AI.

Anonymity or inability to identify the perpetrators makes the redress or prevention of Cybercrime victimization challenging. The huge potential scope of digital platforms means that damaging content can spread very quickly, with a hugely amplified impact on victims. This anonymity creates enormous challenges to holding perpetrators accountable and providing support to the victim. ^[iv]

In Cultural betrayal trauma theory, victims targeted in a community or a group of individuals with shared cultural identities (eg, Racial minorities, lesbians, gay men, and bisexual persons) suffer from compounded violence and distrust and may need to work with a culturally competent justice model. Betrayal trauma theory, proposed by Jennifer Freyd in 1994, describes how trauma perpetrated by someone to whom the victim is close and depends upon for support can cause dissociation and psychological trauma.^[v]

Beyond invasions of privacy, manipulated media like deepfake pornography re-traumatize victims in perpetuity online. Despite this, studies suggest that deepfake porn is among the most prevalent types of non-consensual synthetic intimate images, affecting people around the world. ^[vi]

The justice systems will have to evolve away from physical courts and into the digital evidence realm with forensic trace analysis and trauma-informed care grounded in neuroscience and psychology. Trauma-informed social media practice involves acknowledging that we all probably have a history of trauma in our lives and that trauma occurs on individual, secondary, collective, and cultural levels, and the intersection between digital communities and digital policy. ^[vii]

By incorporating these points, victimology can strive to better accommodate the challenges of digital victimization while creating a more effective and compassionate justice system.

Legal Frameworks and Judicial Responses: Progress and Problems

Gaps in the Law

But while understanding Digital Trauma in theory is one thing, that is only half the equation. The real task is to make an enforceable law of empathy. Many legal systems are not well-equipped to address the complexities of digital Trauma, creating significant gaps in the justice system for victims. Cybercrimes frequently cross international boundaries, making it difficult for justice to be carried out, as jurisdiction can be split and difficult to pursue. Inconsistent international laws, a lack of cooperation between nations, and disparate legal frameworks that make it difficult for law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute offenders also compound the challenges. These issues are compounded by the fact that Cyberspace is global, and activities can span across multiple jurisdictions, including whether a case in one country can or cannot be heard and decided by the court or other authority in another country.^[viii].

Identifying digital harm in a legal context is also problematic. Economic and bodily inquiry is often weightier than emotional and psychological inquiries, not necessarily representing the majority in a courtroom, for example the personal inquiry element of the European definition of ‘personal inquiry’ has been clarified by supreme court of Ireland: emotional distress, upset and anxiety are not ‘personal inquiry’ except where these experiences rise to the level of a recognized psychiatric disorder. This limitation prevents an aggrieved party from recovering for the non-material damages caused by Cybercrime.

Unfortunately, current information management practices are struggling in the digital era. Digital traces- e.g., server logs, metadata- need specialist forensic expertise, collaboration across disciplines. Challenges include small sample sizes, contamination, result interpretation, technology limitations, and sample preservation. These problems can make it difficult to effectively collect and analyze digital evidence, impacting the integrity of the investigation and the ability to hold perpetrators accountable.^[ix]

Innovations in Justice

Several jurisdictions have taken the initial steps towards bringing forward legislative actions to tackle digital abuse and support its victims. The Online Safety Act from the United Kingdom, effective from March 17, 2025, requires online platforms to take positive steps to prevent and remove illegal content, such as child sexual abuse images and revenge porn. Platforms that do not comply with the above requirements may be fined up to £18 million or 10% of their global annual revenue, whichever is higher.^[x] The act also enables Ofcom, as its independent regulator, to hold companies and senior managers within them criminally liable for non-compliance with the act, including failure to respond to information requests or enforcement notices relating to child safety duties.^[xi]

In India, the Information Technology Act 2000, the Indian Penal Code, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are the relevant laws that deal with cyber harassment and provide a legal framework in the Indian legal regime. Section 66E (offenses committed against privacy)^[xii], section 66C (offenses of identity theft)^[xiii], and section 354D (offenses of stalking) ^[xiv]are all available forums for victims to seek remedies and compensation. Furthermore, section 43A of the act requires body corporates to have reasonable security practices and procedures in place if the body corporate deals with sensitive personal data. Failure to do so results in wrongful loss or gain; they would be liable to pay damages by way of compensation for the gain to the affected person. ^[xv]

Therapeutic jurisprudence is an interdisciplinary approach that integrates psychological insights into legal proceedings with restorative and victim-centered approaches to digital Trauma. This method of justice emphasizes the emotional and psychological health of victims and is a means to repair the harms that have occurred and to the relationship among the involved parties, rather than strictly punishing the offender.^[xvi] There are many ways such practices can help victims recover from the torture suffered by offering therapeutic intervention and healing in the justice system. In addition, the incorporation of Digital Trauma redressal data protection mechanisms and judicial training curriculum might be a means through which compassion becomes legitimized in the justice system.

The Role of Neuroscience and Psychology: Rethinking Criminal Responsibility

Understanding trauma is not a matter of law – it is a matter of the mind. Why justice needs to heal: science shows why emerging research suggests that trauma from exposure to Cybercrime triggers our neural circuits for fear, stress response, and memory, with the potential of causing long-lasting changes in victims’ thoughts and behavior. Studies have shown that, as a result of cyberbullying, there can be substantial changes in the brain’s neural activity, in particular, in the areas responsible for empathy.^[xvii] Additionally, trauma has a dramatic effect on the neural pathways in the brain, including regulating emotions, reactions to stress, balance of neurotransmitters, and processing of memories.^[xviii] Courts are increasingly looking to neuropsychological evidence to discern how profoundly the harm has been suffered. Judicial practices, for example, are being explored to more effectively address the needs of trauma survivors within the legal system.^[xix]

In particular, incorporating the use of technology such as online counseling, virtual support groups, and trauma-informed digital courts can help bridge the gap between the needs of victims and legal solutions. Organizations like Peace Over Violence provide trauma-informed services to help survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault heal from the trauma.^[xx] Additionally, the trauma survivor network provides virtual support groups in which trauma survivors related to physical injuries can offer support to each other.^[xxi]

Justice involves much more than retribution: it must also be about healing. Digital Trauma causes unique psychological and physical symptoms, and a synthesis of neuroscience and psychology to understand and treat this phenomenon may lead to more productive, humane responses to victims of Cybercrime.

Bridging the Divide: Interdisciplinary Solutions for Digital Victimology

These insights make one truth abundantly clear: the rule of law cannot function in silos. Responding to Digital Trauma requires an interdisciplinary, transnational, and trans-systemic approach. The digital (victimization) issue is undeniably of a multi-stakeholder nature and calls for a multi-disciplinary approach to combating digital victimization. Integrated Cybercrime response teams incorporating the skills and resources of law enforcement, forensic information and technology, and psychology and victim advocacy teams are critical. These teams provide a holistic approach to support, but victims get all of the help they need from a hands-on legal, technical, and emotional standpoint. For example, the U.S Department of Justice’s Criminal Division has resources available to help with Cybercrime investigations, which makes it important to possess specific knowledge for handling such crimes.^[xxii]

Given the international nature of Cybercrime, it is essential that there are agreements in place to share data and take swift action against cybercriminals. The CLOUD Act makes it easier to directly access electronic data stored by US providers for access by foreign partners who enjoy robust privacy protection, in order to obtain evidence for grave crimes.^[xxiii] This international cooperation means that those who commit offenses, no matter which Geographical border they cross, are brought to justice. Neuroscience-informed restorative practices may be a promising path to help victims heal. Such practices are not focused on punishment for the sake of punishment, but on repairing damage and rebuilding relationships. Restorative justice can be tailored to meet the needs of the victims in order to help them grow through healing, longing to learn about the neurobiology effects of trauma, and avoid the potential to trigger relapses.^[xxiv]

The digital, the future of justice, reads with quick response, digital evolves, and the eyes of understanding trauma seem to extend far beyond the court. The integration of law enforcement, technology, psychology, and victim support will help society create a more efficient, understanding system to overcome the challenges of Cybercrime.

Conclusion: Coding Compassion into Justice

In modern times, the concept of justice cannot be confined to the four walls of legal procedures and trials. This must be expanded to include healing, restoration, and a sense of collective responsibility towards individuals who have been recipients of the trauma of cybercrime. True justice is displayed when the law develops a notion of the psychology of harm and science incorporates empathy into its response.

Digital trauma is not just a technological issue with disregard for the human crisis; it requires emotional intelligence, thoughtful commitment, and real structural changes. The phenomenon requires an interdisciplinary approach – one that straddles law, psychology, and technology to solve the multidimensional problems of the computer age.

In this context, justice must be redefined beyond the boundaries of traditional justice to have the capacity to justly address digital trauma as a legitimate and urgent phenomenon. Such recognition calls for the elaboration of humane and restorative patterns in victimology, where there can be a shift of focus away from a punitive result to an empathic rehabilitation and support.

 The quest for justice in the digital world, then, becomes not just an issue of legality, but an issue of morality and sociality- an issue that addresses the quest of restoring humanity in a world increasingly mediated through technology.

Endnotes

[i] See Rana Ayyub, I Was the Victim of a Deepfake Porn Plot Intended to Silence Me, HuffPost (Nov. 21, 2018, 8:11 AM), https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/deepfake-porn_uk_5bf2c126e4b0f32bd58ba316/ [https://perma.cc/DCS8-A86].

[ii] Hinduja, S., Patchin, J.W. Cyberbullying through the lens of trauma: an empirical examination of US youth. BMC Public Health 25, 1709 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22692-6

[iii] Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (2021). Online Harms White Paper: Evidence Summary. GOV.UK.

[iv] Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory into the cybercrime domain. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238.

[v] Freyd, Jennifer J. (1998-02-06). Betrayal Trauma: The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse (Reprint ed.). Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-06806-3.

[vi] Paris, B., 024

 Donovan, J. (2019). Deepfakes and Cheap Fakes: The Manipulation of Audio and Visual Evidence. Data & Society Research Institute.

[vii] SAMHSA (2014). Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

[viii] Investigating Cybercrime: The Key Jurisdictional and Technical Challenges Faced by Law Enforcement and Ways to Address Them (Univ. of York, July 2025), https://www.york.ac.uk/media/law/documents/eventsandnewsdocs/2.%20Investigating%20Cybercrime_The%20Key%20Jurisdictional%20and%20Technical%20Challenges%20Faced%20by%20Law%20Enforcement%20and%20Ways%20to%20Address%20Them.pdf.

[ix] R. Stoykova, Digital Evidence: Unaddressed Threats to Fairness and the Presumption of Innocence, ___ (number) Journal Name ___ (2021), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364921000480

[x] John Woodhouse, Implementation of the Online Safety Act: Research Briefing (House of Commons Library, Feb. 25, 2025), https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2025-0043/.

[xi] U.K. Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, Online Safety Act: explainer (updated Apr. 24, 2025), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer.

[xii] Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, § 66E (India)

[xiii] Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, § 66C (India)

[xiv] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act No. 45, § 354D (India)

[xv] The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21 of 2000 (India), updated version, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf.

[xvi] Susie Atherton, Restorative Practice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Court: A Case Study of Teesside Community Court, 11 Laws 72 (2022), https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/11/5/72.

[xvii] Author(s), Title of Article, Volume Number Journal Name Page Number(s) (Year), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11920150/.

[xviii] Bremner, J. D. (2006). Trauma and the brain: Overview of structural and functional brain changes in PTSD. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(4), 445–461

[xix] Eva McKinsey et al., Trauma-Informed Judicial Practice from the Judges’ Perspective, 106 Judicature 2 (2022), https://www.judicature.duke.edu/articles/trauma-informed-judicial-practice-from-the-judges-perspective/.

[xx] Peace Over Violence, Counseling (2025), https://www.peaceoverviolence.org/counseling.

[xxi] Trauma Survivors Network, Support Groups (2025), https://www.traumasurvivorsnetwork.org/support-groups/.

[xxii] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, CLOUD Act Resources (last updated Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/cloud-act-resources.

[xxiii] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, CLOUD Act Resources (last updated Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.justice.gov/criminal/cloud-act-resources.

[xxiv] Mahan, A. L., & Ressler, K. J. (2012). Fear conditioning, synaptic plasticity and the amygdala: Implications for posttraumatic stress disorder. Nature Neuroscience Reviews, 13(9), 769–777.