Critically consider the extent to which a current criminal justice issue can be explained by sociological theories of crime and deviance.
Essay Question: Critically consider the extent to which a current criminal justice issue can be explained by sociological theories of crime and deviance.’
In this case the Criminal justice Issue my lecturer has given us is Drill music, the two theories we are using subcultural theory, labelling theory.
You must apply both theories to your chosen issue. This could give you the opportunity to compare and contrast theories, their relative strengths, and limitations. However, be mindful of the word limit.
When analysing a theory/issue? Make sure you include the advantages and disadvantages?
The merits and limitations of a theory (or more than one) can be analysed in relation to the chosen criminal justice issue in practice. For example, in analysing a particular issue, you may rely on classic criminology (e.g., free will, rationality) to explain someones actions or conduct, however that same issue or conduct may be influenced by social factors. Here you would evidence the limitations of, for example, classic criminology, and evaluate the strengths of other theories such as structural theories or subcultural theories.
You should develop your argument based on your views of the issue and the strengths/weaknesses of the theory/theories. Your views should be evidence-based, however. For example, saying that labelling theory is unable to fully explain a certain issue is more an opinion than it is a fact. However, you can then back this view by giving examples of the theorys weakness based on the evidence you have gathered, which would be more fact-based.
Layout guideline
A rough guideline could be for the intro and conclusion to be 250/300 words each, and the main body of the essay (the remaining 1750 or so words) broken down into three points of 500 – 600 words each, or four points of roughly 435 words each. There is no rule around this.
Critically assessing
It will be fine to critically assess individual theories without talking about the broader, overall theories or approaches that they belong to. For example, if you are comparing strain theory and labelling theory (as per a question posted above) you can do that without necessarily mentioning sociological positivism and interactionism. If you are discussing the merits and limitations of deterrence theory, you dont have to mention classicism etc. unless its relevant to your chosen issue and the question.
In each paragraph try to make a single point. The first sentence of your para should give the reader a clear sense of the point you are trying to make.
Of course, it may be that a bigger argument needs to be broken down into smaller points, with a paragraph for each point. When thinking about how much space to give to different parts of your argument, try to think about (a) the complexity of different elements of your argument (b) their relative importance to your overall argument © the degree to which they are contested. This will help you to think which elements of your argument need the most space in your argument.
Exploring something critically means evaluating a particular argument/ theory / approach. It is important to think about how a particular author has come to their conclusions and whether you find those conclusions credible: what evidence do they use? Does this match the claims that they are making? Is the evidence comprehensive etc.
In this process, you can think with other scholars – who might agree or disagree with the particular theorist you are exploring? What is important here, however, is not just to cite a variety of sources / authors who might disagree for the sake of it. The purpose of thinking with others is to take us further in coming to more credible arguments. So, make sure that when you are bringing other scholars and perspectives in, you are thinking critically about them as well.
It is important that you have an argument and that we are able to see what you think and why. This does not mean, however, that you need to agree entirely with a single theorist. Your conclusion might be that a combination of different approaches is useful.
A common misconception is that a strong argument is a blunt argument or an extreme argument. This is not the case. When we are assessing the arguments, you are making, we are thinking about the evidence that you are offering and the conclusions you reach on that basis. It is the clarity of your argument and the rigour of the evidence that you offer that will make it strong.
