✅ Strengths
Police targeting and stop and search help to explain why young people appear so often in the figures. Gang culture and status frustration show why crime can feel worthwhile to a young person with no money and little status.
Explaining Crime » Evaluating Explanations of Crime
What you'll learn this session
Study time: 30 minutes
Cambridge spec: 6.2.7
- The strengths and limitations of the explanations of crime by age, ethnicity, gender and social class
- The strengths and limitations of the main sociological theories of crime, side by side
- How to compare explanations and write a 14-mark "Evaluate" answer on crime
🔒 Unlock Full Course Content
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseFrom explaining to judging
The last seven lessons gave you many reasons why people commit crime. Now the exam asks you to judge them. For each explanation you need a strength (what makes it convincing) and a limitation (what it misses or gets wrong). You used both ideas in the lessons on evaluating family theories and achievement.
Here is a short reminder of the plan. Say what the explanation claims, give one strength, give one limitation, and then say how far it is convincing.
For a 14-mark "Evaluate the view that..." question, build your answer from these judgements: at least three arguments for, at least three arguments against, and a conclusion that makes a judgement.
Explanations by age
❌ Limitations
Most young people never offend, so age alone is not a cause. If police watch young people more closely, the pattern may partly show who gets caught, not who offends. Age also overlaps with class and gender.
Explanations by ethnicity
✅ Strengths
Institutional racism, shown by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, explains how unfair treatment can happen even when no one intends it. Relative deprivation and prejudice help to explain why some minority groups may feel shut out.
❌ Limitations
Many members of every ethnic group are law-abiding, so these explanations can drift into stereotyping. They rely on recorded crime, which may reflect policing. Ethnicity is also hard to separate from class and age.
Explanations by gender
✅ Strengths
Socialisation and the culture of masculinity explain why men are over-represented, and closer supervision of girls explains why fewer women offend. Looking at harassment and domestic abuse also shows the crimes women suffer.
❌ Limitations
The chivalry thesis is hard to prove, because we cannot easily measure how many women are let off. Most men do not offend, so masculinity cannot be the whole story. Such explanations say little about why some women do offend.
Explanations by social class
✅ Strengths
Social exclusion and deprivation explain why some people have fewer legal routes to what they need. Tax fraud and hiding a product safety fault remind us that crime is not only a working-class matter.
❌ Limitations
Most poorer people are law-abiding, so poverty is not a rule. More policing in poorer areas can exaggerate the link. Class also cannot explain why men offend more than women.
The sociological theories side by side
📝 Functionalism, strain and subcultures
Strength: Durkheim shows why some crime is normal and useful, strain theory links crime to blocked goals, and Cohen explains group crime. Limitation: they say little about the crimes of the wealthy, and subcultural theory mostly describes boys.
👪 The New Right
Strength: it points to the importance of socialisation and role models. Limitation: it blames poorer families (victim blaming) and ignores causes such as lack of jobs.
🏷️ Interactionism
Strength: labelling and moral panics show how crime figures are created. Limitation: it does not explain the first act, and it makes people sound like victims of labels.
🏢 Marxism
Strength: selective enforcement and crimes of the powerful. Limitation: it puts class above gender and ethnicity, and ignores that most victims of theft are ordinary people.
👩 Feminism
Strength: it exposes female victimisation and gendered justice. Limitation: it says less about class, and about male victims.
📱 Postmodernism
Strength: it explains new crimes such as identity theft and the pressure to own brands. Limitation: it has little evidence, and it can ignore lasting inequalities.
🔎 What to notice
Different theories are strong in different places. That is why examiners reward answers that use several theories, not just one.
Comparing the explanations
The best answers do not just list. They set explanations against each other.
- Agree: Marxism and interactionism both say the law is applied unfairly, and both can use the same evidence about police targeting.
- Disagree: Durkheim sees punishment as reminding everyone of shared values, while Marxists see it as protecting the powerful.
- Link: age, ethnicity, gender and class overlap. A young man from a poorer area may be affected by all four at once.
- Test: ask what the explanation cannot explain. The answer is usually your limitation.
Worked example
Point: Relative deprivation helps to explain crime by poorer people.
Evidence: A young person who sees classmates with things they cannot afford may steal to get them.
Evaluation: But most poorer people never offend, and the crimes of the wealthy are ignored, so it is only part of the answer.
Common mistakes
Retelling a theory instead of judging it. Giving a limitation that just says "other things matter". Treating a whole group as the same ("all young people..."). Ending with "both views have strengths" and no real conclusion.
Exam-style question
(a) Explain three limitations of Marxist explanations of crime. [6 marks]
(b) Evaluate the view that social class is the main cause of crime. [14 marks]
Model answer
(a) Any three explained: Marxism puts class above other factors (1), so it says little about why men offend more than women (1). It stresses the crimes of the powerful (1), but most victims of theft and violence are ordinary people from the same communities (1). Many working-class people never offend (1), so class struggle cannot explain why some do and others do not (1).
(b) (14 marks are awarded by level for the quality of argument and judgement, not by counting points. This answer shows the structure.) For: Social exclusion and relative deprivation give poorer people fewer legal routes to what they want. Strain theory links crime to blocked goals. Marxists argue the powerful are rarely punished for their crimes, so class shapes who is labelled criminal. Against: Most poorer people are law-abiding. Gender matters, because socialisation and the culture of masculinity explain why men offend more. Age and ethnicity also matter, as police targeting and institutional racism affect who is recorded. Conclusion: Class is very important, because it shapes opportunity and how the law is enforced. But it does not work alone, since the other factors overlap with it. So class is an important cause, but not the main cause on its own, because it works together with gender, age and ethnicity.
Exam tip
In "Evaluate the view that class is the main cause", name a rival factor in your conclusion and explain why it matters less, or why it works together with class.