Crime and Deviance

The social construction and measurement of crime#

StandardAQA 7192/3 Crime and DevianceDfE GCE Sociology subject content

The dark figure of crime

Fig. 1Typical illustrative pattern (not official statistics): victim surveys estimate far more crime than official statistics record - the 'dark figure'.

Sociology begins by distinguishing crime (behaviour that breaks the criminal law and is subject to formal punishment) from deviance (behaviour that breaks the social norms of a group and attracts an informal or formal negative reaction). The two overlap but are not identical: some crimes are not widely regarded as deviant, and much deviance is not criminal. Crucially, both are socially constructed and relative - what counts as criminal or deviant varies across societies, times and situations, so that no act is inherently deviant; it becomes so only when a society defines and reacts to it as such. This insight, central to interactionism, frames the whole topic.

Because crime is defined by a society's laws and enforcement, the question of who has the power to define and criminalise behaviour is central. Different perspectives answer it differently: functionalists see law as expressing a shared value consensus, Marxists see it as reflecting ruling-class interests, and interactionists focus on the processes through which particular acts and people come to be labelled criminal. The relativity of crime and deviance means that studying them involves studying not only rule-breaking but rule-making and rule-enforcement - the social processes that construct crime.

Measuring crime is fraught with difficulty, and understanding the sources is essential. There are three main sources: official statistics (crimes recorded by the police), victim surveys (such as large-scale crime surveys that ask people about their experience of crime, whether or not reported), and self-report studies (which ask people to admit offences they have committed). Each captures a different slice of crime, and the discrepancies between them reveal the 'dark figure' of crime - the large volume of crime that never appears in official statistics because it is not witnessed, reported, recorded or detected.

The gap between recorded and actual crime makes official statistics a contested source. Positivists treat them as broadly useful social facts for identifying patterns and trends, while interpretivists and Marxists argue they are social constructions - the product of decisions by victims (whether to report), police (whether to record and pursue) and the law (what is defined as criminal) - so that they measure the activity of the criminal justice system as much as of offenders. Selective policing and reporting mean that the statistics may over-represent some groups and crimes and under-represent others (such as corporate and white-collar crime). Evaluating the measurement of crime therefore means understanding both the value and the limits of each source and treating any figures as broad patterns rather than precise official statistics - a foundation for the theories that follow.

Worked example

Evaluating official crime statistics

Explain why official statistics may not give a valid picture of the extent of crime.

Reason one: under-reporting
Much crime is never reported by victims (through fear, embarrassment, distrust of police or seeing it as trivial), so it never enters the statistics - part of the dark figure.
Develop
Victim surveys, which ask about unreported crime, consistently estimate far more crime than the police record, exposing the gap.
Reason two: selective recording and enforcement
The police decide what to record and pursue; selective policing means some groups and crimes are over-represented and others (e.g. corporate crime) under-represented.
Draw the conclusion
The statistics therefore reflect the activity of the criminal justice system as much as of offenders, so they are a social construction, not a transparent measure.

Result: Official statistics understate and distort crime because much goes unreported and enforcement is selective, so they measure the criminal justice system's activity as well as offending - a socially constructed rather than transparent source.

Typical mistakes

Treating crime or deviance as fixed, natural categories rather than socially constructed and relative.
Accepting official crime statistics as a transparent measure of actual crime, ignoring the dark figure and selective enforcement.

Active revision

Outline and explain two reasons why official statistics may not give a valid picture of the extent of crime. (10 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology (Department for Education)

Functionalist, strain and subcultural theories#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Crime and DevianceDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Merton's strain theory

Fig. 2Merton's strain theory: a gap between approved goals and unequal legitimate means produces strain, to which innovation (crime) is one adaptation.

Functionalist theories, following Durkheim, make the surprising argument that crime is not only inevitable but, in the right measure, functional for society. Because no society can achieve total conformity, some deviance is inevitable; and deviance performs positive functions - boundary maintenance (the public punishment of wrongdoing reaffirms shared values and reminds everyone where the line lies), adaptation and change (today's deviant may be tomorrow's reformer, so deviance allows new ideas to enter), and social integration (a shared reaction against wrongdoing binds the community). Durkheim also linked crime to anomie - a state of normlessness that arises when the collective moral regulation of society weakens. Only too much crime is dysfunctional; a moderate amount is normal and necessary.

Merton's strain theory adapts functionalism to explain the pattern and volume of crime. He argued that societies set culturally approved goals (in the United States, material success - the 'American Dream') but distribute the legitimate means to achieve them unequally, so that those denied access to legitimate opportunity experience a 'strain' between goals and means. People adapt to this strain in five ways: conformity (accepting goals and means), innovation (accepting the goals but using illegitimate means - the route to much utilitarian crime), ritualism (abandoning the goals but following the means), retreatism (rejecting both), and rebellion (replacing both with new ones). Strain theory thus explains crime as a response to the structural gap between aspiration and opportunity, concentrated among the disadvantaged.

Subcultural theories develop the strain idea to explain group and non-utilitarian deviance. Cohen argued that working-class boys who fail to achieve status by the mainstream's standards suffer 'status frustration' and respond by forming delinquent subcultures that invert mainstream values, gaining status among peers through the very acts the mainstream condemns ('reaction formation') - which explains vandalism and other apparently pointless delinquency that strain theory's focus on material gain cannot. Cloward and Ohlin added that access to illegitimate opportunities is also unequal, producing different subcultures - criminal (organised utilitarian crime where a criminal structure exists), conflict (violence where it does not) and retreatist (drug use for those who fail in both) - refining the account of why different forms of deviance arise in different settings.

Evaluating this family of theories means weighing their insight against their limitations. Their strength is to explain crime structurally - as a product of the organisation of society and the gap between goals and opportunities - rather than as individual pathology, and to explain both the volume and the social patterning of crime. But they are criticised for over-predicting working-class crime and ignoring middle-class and corporate crime, for assuming a value consensus over goals that may not exist, for a deterministic picture that ignores the meanings deviants give their own actions, and, from the interactionist side, for taking the official statistics that show crime as concentrated among the working class at face value. The strongest answers set these theories against the labelling, Marxist and realist accounts that follow, using each to expose the others' blind spots.

The map of theories of crime and deviance

Fig. 3The main theoretical families in the sociology of crime - each essay sets them against one another.

Worked example

Model 30-mark essay plan: functionalist and subcultural theories

Plan a 30-mark answer evaluating functionalist and subcultural explanations of crime.

Introduction
Define the functionalist/subcultural approach (crime as a structural response); signal the labelling, Marxist and realist alternatives and a judgement. Hook to the Item.
Develop the theories
Durkheim (functions of crime, anomie); Merton (strain, modes of adaptation); Cohen (status frustration, reaction formation); Cloward & Ohlin (three subcultures).
Credit the strengths
They explain crime structurally, not as individual pathology, and account for both the volume and the patterning of crime, including non-utilitarian delinquency.
Evaluate
Over-predict working-class crime; ignore middle-class and corporate crime; assume consensus over goals; deterministic; rely on official statistics (labelling critique).
Bring in alternatives
Labelling (crime is constructed through reaction); Marxism (crime and law reflect capitalism); realism (relative deprivation and control) - each exposes a blind spot.
Judgement
Conclude that functionalist and subcultural theories powerfully explain structural strain but must be combined with labelling and conflict accounts for a full picture - a synthesis, not a one-sided answer.

Result: A top-band essay develops the functionalist and subcultural theories, credits their structural insight, evaluates them with the corporate-crime and official-statistics critiques, sets labelling, Marxist and realist alternatives against them, and reaches an integrated judgement anchored to the Item.

Typical mistakes

Presenting Durkheim as saying crime is simply bad - his point is that a moderate amount is functional and inevitable.
Confusing Merton's structural strain theory with the group-based subcultural theories, or muddling the five modes of adaptation.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate functionalist and subcultural explanations of crime and deviance. (30 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7192) specification (AQA)

Labelling theory and the social construction of the criminal#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Crime and DevianceDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Labelling and secondary deviance

Fig. 4Lemert's model: labelling turns primary deviance into secondary deviance through a master status, closed opportunities and an altered self-image.

Labelling theory, the interactionist approach to crime, shifts the question from 'why do people offend?' to 'why are some acts and people, but not others, defined and treated as criminal?' Becker's classic formulation holds that deviance is not a quality of the act but a consequence of the application of rules and sanctions to an 'offender': an act becomes deviant only when it is so labelled. 'Moral entrepreneurs' campaign to create rules, and their enforcement is selective, so that whether an act leads to a criminal label depends less on the act itself than on who commits it, where, and how others react. The label of 'criminal' can become a 'master status' that overrides all a person's other characteristics.

Lemert's distinction between primary and secondary deviance shows how labelling can amplify offending. Primary deviance is rule-breaking that has not been publicly labelled and has little effect on the person's self-concept; secondary deviance is the deviance that follows from being labelled - the changes in self-image, opportunities and treatment that the label produces. Once labelled a criminal, a person may find legitimate opportunities closed, be treated with suspicion, and come to see themselves through the label, so that the societal reaction can push them into further, more entrenched deviance - a self-fulfilling prophecy. Labelling thus argues that the response to deviance can create more deviance.

The deviancy amplification spiral extends this to the group and societal level, connecting labelling to the media. As Cohen showed in his study of moral panics, media exaggeration and public over-reaction to a form of deviance can lead to intensified control that labels and alienates more people, hardens deviant identities and generates further deviance in a self-reinforcing spiral. Cicourel's study of 'the negotiation of justice' added that agents of social control - police, courts - operate with typifications of the 'typical delinquent' that lead them to police and prosecute some groups more than others, so that the justice process itself constructs the pattern of crime that the official statistics record.

Evaluating labelling theory means recognising its major contributions and its limits. Its strengths are decisive: it exposes the social construction of crime and of criminal statistics, shifts attention to the powerful who make and enforce rules, and shows how control can amplify deviance - insights that structural theories miss. But it is criticised for being deterministic in the opposite direction (implying the labelled person has no choice), for failing to explain primary deviance (why the act occurred before any label), for neglecting the real harm of some crime and the victims, and for not explaining where the power to label comes from - a gap Marxists fill by locating that power in the class structure. The strongest answers use labelling to demolish the taken-for-granted view of crime while acknowledging that it needs the structural theories to explain the origins and distribution of the power to label.

Worked example

Model 30-mark essay plan: labelling theory

Plan a 30-mark answer evaluating the labelling theory of crime.

Introduction
Define labelling's question (why are some acts/people labelled criminal?); signal the structural critique and a judgement. Hook to the Item.
Develop labelling
Becker (labelling, moral entrepreneurs, master status); Lemert (primary/secondary deviance); the self-fulfilling prophecy; Cicourel (negotiation of justice).
Credit the strengths
Exposes the social construction of crime and statistics, the selective enforcement against the powerless, and how control amplifies deviance.
Evaluate
Deterministic; cannot explain primary deviance; neglects victims and real harm; does not explain where the power to label comes from.
Bring in structural theories
Marxism locates the power to label in the class structure; functionalism/strain explains the origins of the deviant act - each fills a labelling gap.
Judgement
Conclude that labelling decisively exposes the construction of crime but must be combined with structural theories that explain the origins and distribution of the power to label.

Result: A top-band essay develops labelling, credits its constructionist insight, evaluates its neglect of primary deviance and the source of labelling power, sets Marxist and functionalist accounts against it, and judges it powerful but incomplete without a structural account.

Typical mistakes

Treating labelling as an explanation of why people first offend (primary deviance), which it explicitly does not attempt.
Ignoring the criticism that labelling neglects victims and the real harm of crime, and cannot explain the origins of the power to label.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate the labelling theory of crime and deviance. (30 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology (Department for Education)

Marxism, neo-Marxism and realism (right and left)#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Crime and DevianceDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Right realism versus left realism

Fig. 5Right realism blames rational choice and disorder; left realism retains a structural analysis of relative deprivation and marginalisation - both take crime seriously.

Traditional Marxist criminology explains crime through the structure of capitalism. Capitalism is 'criminogenic' - it generates crime by its very nature, through the poverty and inequality it produces, the greed and competition it encourages (which drive crime at all levels, including corporate crime), and the alienation it creates. The law itself reflects ruling-class interests: it protects property and the powerful, while its enforcement is selective, coming down hard on the crimes of the poor while the far more costly crimes of the powerful (corporate and white-collar crime) are under-policed and under-punished. Crime statistics and the criminal justice system thus serve ideological functions, presenting crime as a working-class problem and diverting attention from the crimes of capitalism.

The New Criminology, or neo-Marxism, developed by Taylor, Walton and Young, sought a 'fully social theory of deviance' that combined the Marxist emphasis on structure with the interactionist emphasis on meaning. It argued that crime is often a conscious, meaningful choice with a political dimension - that offenders may be actively striving to change society or resist capitalism, not merely reacting to strain - and it called for an analysis that grasped both the structural origins of crime and the offender's own understanding of their actions. This voluntaristic, politicised account was influential but criticised (including later by Young himself) for romanticising criminals and neglecting the real victims of crime, often themselves working class.

Right realism, influential in policy, rejects structural explanations and focuses on practical crime control. Wilson and others argue that crime results from rational choices (offenders weigh the costs and benefits and offend when the rewards outweigh the risks), from inadequate socialisation (linked, as in Murray's underclass thesis, to family breakdown and welfare dependency), and from biological and situational factors. The 'broken windows' thesis argues that visible disorder invites more crime, so control should target low-level disorder and increase the risks and costs of offending through policing and situational prevention. Right realism is credited with practical relevance but criticised for ignoring the structural causes of crime and for over-focusing on street crime.

Left realism, developed by Lea and Young, takes crime seriously as a real problem that harms the working class and disadvantaged groups, while retaining a structural analysis. It explains crime through three linked concepts: relative deprivation (people offend when they feel deprived relative to others, a feeling sharpened by media images of affluence), subculture (a collective response to relative deprivation), and marginalisation (groups excluded from work and politics turning to crime). The 'square of crime' insists that crime must be understood as the interaction of offender, victim, the state and the public. Left realism is praised for taking victims and practical solutions seriously while keeping a structural focus, though critics argue it underplays corporate crime and the role of labelling. Evaluating this family means setting Marxist structural critique, neo-Marxist meaning, and right and left realism against one another and against the earlier theories.

Worked example

Model essay plan: the two realisms

Plan a 30-mark answer evaluating right realist and left realist explanations of crime.

Introduction
Both realisms take crime seriously but explain and address it very differently. Signal a judgement. Hook to the Item.
Develop right realism
Rational choice, inadequate socialisation (underclass), broken windows; control through policing and situational prevention.
Evaluate right realism
Practical, but ignores structural causes, over-focuses on street crime, neglects corporate crime, and blames the poor.
Develop left realism
Relative deprivation, subculture, marginalisation; the square of crime; practical, victim-focused solutions with a structural analysis.
Evaluate left realism
Takes victims and structure seriously, but underplays corporate crime and the role of labelling; relative deprivation is hard to measure.
Judgement
Conclude that left realism better combines structural explanation with taking crime and victims seriously, so it is the more convincing of the two, though each captures something the other misses.

Result: A top-band essay develops and evaluates both realisms, compares them directly on their treatment of structure and victims, and judges left realism the stronger for combining a structural analysis with a serious response to crime - a reasoned, comparative conclusion.

Typical mistakes

Confusing the two realisms - right realism blames individual choice and disorder; left realism retains a structural analysis of relative deprivation and marginalisation.
Presenting traditional Marxism without the neo-Marxist and left-realist developments and critiques.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate right realist and left realist explanations of crime. (30 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7192) specification (AQA)

Gender, ethnicity and crime#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Crime and DevianceDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Explaining the gender gap in crime

Fig. 6The gender gap is explained by the greater social control of women and the use of crime to accomplish masculinity - not by natural difference.

The relationship between gender and crime begins from a striking pattern: recorded crime is overwhelmingly committed by men, and this 'gender gap' is one of the most consistent findings in criminology. Sociologists explain both why women appear to commit less crime and how the criminal justice system treats women. Heidensohn applies control theory, arguing that women are more closely controlled - in the home, in public and at work - which reduces both their opportunities and their inclination to offend; Carlen's research linked women's offending to the breakdown of the 'class deal' and the 'gender deal' that normally bind them to conformity. These accounts explain the gender gap through the social control of women rather than any natural difference.

The treatment of women by the criminal justice system is debated. The 'chivalry thesis' (associated with Pollak) argues that women are treated more leniently because the (largely male) system is protective towards them, so that female crime is under-recorded and women are dealt with more gently - which would mean the gender gap is partly a statistical artefact. Against this, feminists argue that women who deviate from conventional gender norms (as offenders, or as 'bad' mothers) can be treated more harshly - 'double deviants' punished for breaking both the law and gender expectations. The evidence is mixed, and the debate illustrates how gender shapes not only offending but the response to it.

Masculinity has become central to explaining the gender gap from the other direction - why men offend so much. Messerschmidt argues that crime can be a resource for 'accomplishing masculinity': men use crime to construct and express a valued masculine identity, especially where legitimate means of doing so (such as well-paid work) are blocked, so that different masculinities are linked to different forms of crime. The 'liberation thesis' (Adler) - that women's liberation would raise female crime rates towards men's - is generally regarded as unsupported by the evidence, and is a useful point of evaluation. Explaining crime through gender thus requires attention to the control of women, the construction of masculinity, and the gendered response of the justice system.

The relationship between ethnicity and crime is especially sensitive and must be handled with care. The official statistics show some minority ethnic groups over-represented at various stages of the criminal justice process, but sociologists disagree sharply about what this means. One view emphasises the social construction of these statistics through the criminal justice system itself - selective policing, disproportionate stop-and-search, and possible discrimination at successive stages producing an apparent pattern (Gilroy argued the idea of black criminality is a 'myth' generated by a racist society). Another, neo-Marxist view (Hall's analysis of the policing of a 'moral panic' about street robbery) links the labelling of minority-ethnic crime to the needs of the state in a period of crisis. Left realists accept that some of the pattern reflects real offending driven by the relative deprivation, marginalisation and racism experienced by some groups. Evaluating ethnicity and crime means weighing the construction of the statistics against real offending, insisting on the diversity within and between groups, and refusing both the racist stereotype and a naive denial of any real pattern - reaching a careful, evidence-based judgement and treating figures as broad patterns.

Worked example

Model essay plan: gender and crime

Plan a 30-mark answer evaluating sociological explanations of gender and crime.

Introduction
The gender gap is a consistent pattern; sociologists explain both female and male offending and the justice system's treatment of women. Signal a judgement. Hook to the Item.
Why women offend less
Heidensohn's control theory (women more closely controlled); Carlen (breakdown of the class and gender deals) - social control, not nature.
The justice system and women
Chivalry thesis (leniency, artefact) versus double deviance (harsher treatment of norm-breaking women) - evidence mixed.
Why men offend more
Messerschmidt: crime as a resource for accomplishing masculinity where legitimate means are blocked; different masculinities and crimes.
Evaluate the liberation thesis
Adler's claim that liberation raises female crime is largely unsupported - a useful evaluative point.
Judgement
Conclude that the gender gap reflects the social control of women and the construction of masculinity, not natural difference, and that the justice system's treatment of women is itself gendered.

Result: A top-band essay explains the gender gap through the control of women and the construction of masculinity, evaluates the chivalry/double-deviance debate and the liberation thesis, and judges that gender and crime is about social control and construction rather than natural difference.

Typical mistakes

Treating the gender gap or ethnic patterns as evidence of natural differences rather than of social control, construction and the justice process.
Handling ethnicity and crime carelessly - either accepting the statistics as straightforward or denying any real pattern; the sophisticated answer weighs construction against real offending.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate sociological explanations of the relationship between gender and crime. (30 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for sociology (Department for Education)

Control, punishment, victims, globalisation and the media#

AdvancedAQA 7192/3 Crime and DevianceDfE GCE Sociology subject content

Foucault: surveillance and the panopticon

Fig. 7Foucault's panopticon: the possibility of constant observation leads people to police themselves - disciplinary control extended by modern surveillance.

The sociology of crime control and prevention examines the strategies societies use to reduce crime and what they reveal about power. Situational and environmental crime prevention (target-hardening, surveillance, design that reduces opportunity) reflects the right-realist rational-choice model but is criticised for merely displacing crime and ignoring its causes. Foucault's analysis of surveillance is more far-reaching: he argued that modern societies have shifted from spectacular physical punishment to disciplinary control through surveillance, exemplified by the 'panopticon' - a design in which the possibility of constant observation leads people to police themselves. Contemporary surveillance (CCTV, databases, digital monitoring) extends this disciplinary power, raising questions about control that go well beyond crime prevention.

The sociology of punishment asks what punishment is for and what it reveals about society. Functionalists (following Durkheim) see punishment as expressive - reaffirming shared values and boundaries through the public condemnation of wrongdoing - while its stated aims include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Marxists analyse punishment, and imprisonment in particular, as an instrument of class control that reflects the needs of capitalism and manages the marginalised. The scale and social composition of the prison population, and debates about the effectiveness and purpose of imprisonment, are central here, connecting punishment to the wider debates about power and inequality.

Victimology studies the patterning and experience of victimisation. Positivist victimology seeks to identify the characteristics and behaviour that make some people more likely to become victims, but is criticised for 'victim-blaming'. Critical victimology, by contrast, emphasises that victimisation, like offending, is patterned by structural factors - class, gender, ethnicity, age - so that the most disadvantaged are often the most victimised, and that the power to label some harms as 'crimes' with 'victims' (and to ignore others, such as corporate or state harms) is itself unequally distributed. Victim surveys reveal that victimisation is far more concentrated among the disadvantaged than the image of random risk suggests.

Globalisation, the media, and green and state crime extend the topic to contemporary forms. Globalisation has produced transnational crime (trafficking, cybercrime, organised crime) and a 'global criminal economy', and has been linked (by Taylor and others) to the crime-generating effects of global capitalism. The media both shape public perceptions of crime (often exaggerating and distorting it, fuelling moral panics and fear of crime) and provide new opportunities for crime. Green crime (harms against the environment) and state crime (large-scale harms committed by states, from corruption to human rights abuses) direct attention to the most serious harms, which conventional definitions of crime often ignore - a point emphasised by critical criminologists. Evaluating this final strand means showing how control, punishment, victimisation and the new forms of crime connect to the theories and to the structures of power the whole topic documents, and reaching judgements grounded in that analysis.

Worked example

Evaluating surveillance as crime control

Assess the contribution of surveillance to the control of crime.

State the case for surveillance
Situational prevention and surveillance (CCTV, monitoring) raise the risks of offending and, via Foucault's panopticon, lead people to police themselves.
Credit the contribution
Surveillance can deter and detect crime and reflects the rational-choice model, and modern technology extends its reach.
Apply the critiques
It may merely displace crime, ignores its structural causes (left realism), and raises civil-liberties and power concerns; Foucault warns it extends disciplinary control over everyone.
Add the inequality point
Surveillance can be applied selectively, disproportionately targeting the marginalised - reproducing rather than reducing inequality in who is controlled.
Judgement
Conclude that surveillance contributes to crime control but addresses symptoms not causes, displaces rather than prevents, and extends disciplinary power - so its contribution is real but limited and double-edged.

Result: Surveillance contributes to deterrence and detection but ignores the structural causes of crime, may displace it, and extends disciplinary control unequally - so its contribution to crime control is real but limited and raises serious questions about power.

Typical mistakes

Describing crime-control policies or types of crime without linking them to the theories and to power.
Treating victimisation as random rather than structurally patterned, or ignoring corporate, green and state crime.

Active revision

Applying material from the Item and your knowledge, evaluate the contribution of surveillance to the control of crime in contemporary society. (30 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Sociology (7192) specification (AQA)

Key points

Evaluating official crime statistics

Key points

Model 30-mark essay plan: functionalist and subcultural theories

Key points

Model 30-mark essay plan: labelling theory

Key points

Model essay plan: the two realisms

Key points

Model essay plan: gender and crime

Key points

Evaluating surveillance as crime control

Sources

Crime and Deviance

Key points

Evaluating official crime statistics

Key points

Model 30-mark essay plan: functionalist and subcultural theories

Key points

Model 30-mark essay plan: labelling theory

Key points

Model essay plan: the two realisms

Key points

Model essay plan: gender and crime

Key points

Evaluating surveillance as crime control

Sources