Crime is conduct defined as a criminal offence in the relevant jurisdiction and period. Deviance concerns violation of relevant norms, so the categories can overlap without being identical; civil wrongs and harmful actions are not automatically criminal offences.
Original fictional setting: a club expects silent reading; speaking loudly may violate that norm without the case supplying any offence. A different setting may permit it. Define the rule and context rather than assume every unusual act is deviant or criminal.
Separate a norm from a criminal rule
Trace reporting, recording and justice outcomes
An offence may become known through a victim, witness, agency or police activity, and then be recorded under rules. Recording, arrest, charge, conviction and sentence are different stages; a recorded offence is not automatically solved.
The dark figure concerns offending absent from the relevant recorded measure. Under-reporting and under-recording are different mechanisms, and changes in police activity or recording standards can alter counts without the same change in underlying conduct.
Keep measurement and justice stages distinct
Compare complementary sources within their scope
Police records provide known offences and useful local/detail information, while household victimisation surveys can capture covered experiences not reported to police. Offending self-reports add another perspective with disclosure, recall and sampling limits.
The CSEW concerns specified experiences in England and Wales and does not cover all offences/populations: homicide, crimes against businesses and people outside private-household coverage require other sources. Compare matching periods, definitions and populations rather than assume one complete total.
Compare sources with coverage limits
Interpret an original fictional recorded-crime trend
Original practice count: recorded offences rise from 50 to 70 between two periods. The increase is 20, and 20/50 × 100 = 40%. This is a change in the recorded count; no information is supplied about recording practice, reporting or population change.
Possible explanations include changed offending, reporting, detection or recording. Seek matched independent evidence and context; do not report the example as a real national trend or infer the cause from arithmetic alone.
Calculate an original fictional recorded change
Compare strain, status and labelling mechanisms
Merton’s strain account links valued goals and unequal legitimate means to different adaptations; Cohen’s status-frustration account concerns alternative status standards in a particular explanation of delinquency. Neither makes poverty or subculture membership proof of offending.
Becker’s labelling approach asks who creates/applies rules and how reactions affect identities and opportunities. Labels may contribute to further deviance, but people can resist them and initial conduct needs explanation too; a theory is not an inevitable life path.
Compare possible theoretical mechanisms
Assess power, gender and social-order arguments
Marxist analysis may examine class interests in law-making and enforcement; feminist approaches may investigate gendered harms and justice responses. The chivalry thesis is a hypothesis about some differential treatment, requiring comparison of comparable cases.
Durkheim argued crime is a normal feature of social life and responses can clarify boundaries, not that every harm is beneficial. Formal/informal control can encourage conformity without guaranteeing it, and the fairness of rules remains open to evaluation.
Evaluate power and social-order claims
Separate group counts, rates and individual inference
Original fictional groups: A has 20 of 200 members recorded for a stated offence in the period, while B has 30 of 600. A’s recorded proportion is 10% and B’s 5%; the larger count in B does not mean a larger proportion.
These are fictional unnamed groups, not findings about age, class, ethnicity or sex. Actual comparisons need a defined population, offence and period, plus attention to reporting and policing; no group figure establishes an individual’s conduct or one cause.
Compare original fictional recorded proportions
Distinguish occupational crime, harm and roles
Sutherland’s classic white-collar concept concerns offending by a person of high/respectable status in the course of occupation. Occupational and corporate offending can overlap; not all workplace harm is criminal and not all professionals offend.
Victims, offenders, witnesses and occupations are not exclusive identities. An accusation is not proof of offending, victimisation need not await conviction, and risks differ by offence and setting rather than one group being universally most at risk.
Distinguish conduct and overlapping roles
Evaluate media claims and fear of crime
Fear is perceived risk/worry, distinct from recorded crime or victimisation. A selected set of dramatic reports may differ from the distribution of offences, but demonstrating influence on fear needs audience evidence and consideration of other factors.
A moral-panic analysis asks whether reaction to a perceived threat is disproportionate, often with a blamed group; real harms may still exist. Compare independent evidence and responses, avoid stereotyping, and distinguish a claim about media selection from a measured causal effect.
Test a media-and-crime claim
幻灯片
Sign up free to view the lesson slides
Step through every slide for this topic — plus flashcards and revision notes — with a free account.
