CRIM1000 Semester 2, 2025

Crime Story Analysis: Theory as a Lens for Understanding

Due Date: November 10th 4pm (Exam Week)

Word Count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)

Weighting: 40% (40 marks)

Over the course of the semester each lecture begins with a true crime story. These

stories are designed to connect you to the core theoretical questions addressed in each

lecture, build empathy and curiosity by bridging the gap between studying crime and

lived experience.

You will choose a crime story that interests you and use ONE criminological theory to

help make sense of it. Your task is to tell this story in a compelling way, then

demonstrate how criminological theory can deepen our understanding of why this

crime occurred. Think of theory as a lens that reveals patterns, connections, and

explanations that might not be obvious from the surface details of the story.

Task Description:

Part A: Tell Your Crime Story (approx. 600-700 words)

Choose a real crime story, event, or incident that interests you. This could be:

• A high-profile case you've followed in the media

• A historical crime that fascinates you

• A local incident from your community

• A crime story from your family history (with appropriate sensitivity)

• An international case that caught your attention

Tell this story as a narrative that includes:

• The key people involved (offender, victims, key figures)

• The sequence of events leading up to, during, and after the crime

• The social, economic, and environmental context

• The aftermath and consequences

• What makes this story compelling or significant to you

Write this as an engaging story that would capture a reader's interest, not just a dry

recitation of facts.

Part B: Unpack Your Story Using Criminological Theory (approx 1000 words)

Choose ONE criminological theory from our course readings and lectures to analyse

your story. Your goal is to show how this theory helps us understand the crime in ways

that wouldn't be obvious from just hearing the story.

Your analysis should:

• Clearly explain your chosen theory and its key principles and how they work

together to explain the crime

• Apply the theory systematically to your story, showing how it illuminates different

aspects of the crime

• Demonstrate what the theory helps us see that we might have missed

• Acknowledge what the theory cannot explain or where it falls short

Part C: Positionality Statement (approximately 200 words)

Reflect on why you chose this particular story and how your background might influence

your analysis. Consider your relationship to the case and any potential biases or

insights this creates. See the information on Blackboard on how to write a positionality

statement.

Where to Use Research Literature:

You have several places for incorporating scholarly sources:

Support Your Theoretical Explanation

• Use scholarly sources to explain your chosen theory

• Show how scholars have used this theory to explain similar crimes

Provide Context for Your Story

• Use scholarly sources to provide background on the type of crime, location, or

social issues involved

• Use this research to contextualize your specific story within broader patterns

Suggested Structure:

1. Introduction (including why this story matters and a preview of your argument)

2. The Crime Story (your compelling narrative)

3. Theoretical Lens (explanation of your chosen theory)

4. Making Sense of the Story (applying theory to understand the crime)

5. Limitations and Reflections (what the theory can't explain, your positionality)

6. Conclusion (what we gain from this theoretical understanding)

7. References (APA 7th style)

8. AI Usage Statement

Important Considerations:

Ethical Guidelines:

• Treat all people in your story with dignity and respect

• Be sensitive to victims and their families

• If discussing people you know personally, protect their privacy

• Consider the ongoing impact of sharing this story

Source Requirements:

• A minimum of 6 scholarly, peer-reviewed references (see options above)

• Reliable sources about your chosen case (news reports, court documents,

official reports)

• Ensure you can access sufficient information about your case

Technical Requirements:

You may use AI to SUPPORT your writing, but you must include an AI usage

statement as an appendix. Failure to include this statement will result in a grade of

0. Tutorials will include a discussion of what appropriate AI usage looks like for this

assessment.

The reference list and AI statement are not included in the word count.

Why This Assignment Matters:

Crime stories surround us in media, conversations, and community experiences, but we

often accept surface-level explanations for why crimes occur. This assignment

develops your ability to look deeper—to use criminological theory as a tool for

understanding complex human behaviour and social problems. By choosing your own

story, you'll engage more meaningfully with both the human reality of crime and the

analytical power of criminological thinking. This skill of applying theoretical frameworks

to real-world problems is essential for anyone working in criminal justice, policy,

research, or community safety.

Grading Rubric: Must include AI Statement

40 points total Grade 7

(High Distinction)

Grade 6

(Distinction)

Grade 5

(Credit)

Grade 4

(Pass)

Grade 3

(Marginal Fail)

Grade 1-2 (Fail)

Crime Story

Narrative (10

points)

Compelling, well-structured

narrative with rich detail,

context, and clear significance.

Demonstrates original voice

and personal engagement with

the story.

Well-told story with good

detail and context. Shows

clear personal connection

and authentic voice.

Adequate storytelling

with sufficient detail.

Shows some personal

engagement with basic

narrative structure.

Basic story with some

detail but limited

personal engagement.

Simple narrative

approach.

Weak storytelling with

minimal detail. Little

evidence of personal

investment or authentic

voice.

Very poor or

incomplete story.

Generic or detached

approach with no

personal connection

Theoretical

Understanding &

Application

(10 points)

Exceptional grasp of theory with

sophisticated, original

application to the story. Shows

independent thinking about

how theory illuminates the

crime.

Strong understanding of

theory with thoughtful

application. Clear,

independent connections

between theory and story

elements.

Adequate theoretical

understanding with

competent application

to the story. Some

independent analysis

evident.

Basic theory explanation

with limited application.

Shows understanding

but minimal

independent thinking.

Weak theoretical

understanding with poor

application. Little

evidence of independent

analysis.

Poor or missing

theoretical

explanation. No

meaningful

independent

application to story.

Research

Integration

(5 points)

Outstanding synthesis of

scholarly sources with original

analysis. Sources seamlessly

woven into student's own

argument and insights.

Good integration of

research with clear

evidence of student's own

thinking. Sources support

rather than replace

analysis.

Adequate use of

sources with some

evidence of

independent synthesis

and analysis.

Basic use of research

with limited synthesis.

Student voice

sometimes unclear

among sources.

Minimal integration of

sources. Heavy reliance

on source material with

little independent

analysis.

Very limited use of

sources or over- reliance on external

material. No evidence

of independent

synthesis.

Critical Analysis

& Limitations

(5 points)

Sophisticated, original analysis

of theory's strengths and

limitations. Demonstrates

independent critical thinking

throughout.

Good critical analysis

showing independent

evaluation of theoretical

limitations and

applications.

Adequate critical

thinking with some

independent

consideration of

limitations and

applications.

Basic analysis with

limited independent

critical reflection on

theory's strengths and

limitations.

Minimal critical analysis.

Little evidence of

independent evaluation

or reflection.

No independent

critical analysis. Over- reliance on external

sources for

evaluation.

Positionality &

Reflection

(5 points)

Thoughtful, authentic reflection

demonstrating genuine self- awareness and original insights

about personal connection to

story.

Good personal reflection

with authentic self- awareness and clear

individual voice.

Adequate positionality

statement showing

some genuine self- reflection and personal

insight.

Basic positionality with

limited authentic

reflection. Some

evidence of personal

thought.

Minimal personal

reflection. Little evidence

of genuine self- awareness or individual

perspective.

Missing, generic, or

inauthentic

positionality

statement. No

evidence of personal

reflection.

Presentation &

Writing

(5 points)

Excellent individual writing

style, within word limit, perfect

referencing, outstanding

personal organization and

authentic voice throughout.

Good personal writing style

with minor errors, within

limit, mostly correct

referencing, clear individual

voice.

Adequate writing

showing individual style,

within limit, some

reference errors,

evidence of personal

voice.

Basic writing with some

individual elements,

close to limit, several

errors, limited personal

voice.

Poor writing quality with

little individual style,

outside word limit, many

errors, generic voice.

Very poor writing with

no individual style,

significantly

over/under limit,

major errors, heavily

generic.

51作业君版权所有