Functionalist and Marxist Explanations of Crime

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• names a first adaptation, e.g. innovation1 mark
• explains it, e.g. the individual accepts the culturally approved goal of success but uses illegitimate means, such as theft, to achieve it1 mark
• names a second adaptation, e.g. ritualism1 mark
• explains it, e.g. the individual gives up on achieving the goal of success but still rigidly follows the legitimate means, going through the motions without real ambition1 mark

Nothing ticked yet - 4 available

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• Award up to 8 marks for a response that identifies and explains relevant points, supported by sociological evidence.2 marks
• 1-2 marks: identifies that Marxists see the law as reflecting the interests of the capitalist ruling class rather than shared societal values.2 marks
• 1-2 marks: explains selective law enforcement, e.g. working-class crimes such as burglary are heavily policed while corporate crimes, such as unsafe working conditions or fraud, are far less likely to result in prosecution.1 mark
• 1-2 marks: uses sociological evidence, e.g. William Chambliss's argument that policing tends to favour the interests of powerful groups, or Edwin Sutherland's concept of white-collar crime, to support the point.1 mark
• 1-2 marks: explains the ideological function of law, e.g. laws that appear to protect everyone, such as health and safety legislation, can be weakly enforced, which disguises inequality and makes capitalism appear fairer than it is.1 mark
• Full marks require clear explanation linked to named sociological evidence rather than unsupported assertion.1 mark

Nothing ticked yet - 8 available

Tick each line you got. Your score builds from the marks on the scheme.

• Detailed and accurate knowledge of the Marxist explanation and at least one alternative explanation of crime. Builds a developed, well-evidenced argument on both sides using named sociologists, and reaches a clear, substantiated conclusion.2 marks
• Accurate knowledge of the Marxist explanation and at least one other perspective, with named evidence, but the argument or evaluation is less fully developed.2 marks
• Some appropriate knowledge of the link between inequality and crime, but the answer may be one-sided or lack named sociological evidence.2 marks
• Basic, undeveloped knowledge with little clear reference to inequality or named sociological theory.2 marks
• No creditable response.1 mark
• Marxists argue capitalism is criminogenic, with poverty and inequality pushing the poor towards crimes of need such as theft, while the wealthy engage in largely unpunished corporate crime; Merton's strain theory shows how blocked legitimate means to material success can produce innovation, i.e. crime, particularly among the poorest; Chambliss's argument that law enforcement favours the powerful supports the claim that the system itself is shaped by inequality.1 mark
• Durkheim's functionalist view suggests crime exists in all types of society, including more equal ones, because some crime performs positive functions such as boundary maintenance, implying inequality is not the sole cause; interactionists such as Becker would argue that inequality alone cannot explain crime, since whether an act counts as criminal depends on how it is labelled by those with power to make rules, not simply on economic circumstances; not all crime is committed by the poor, e.g. white-collar and corporate crime is committed by wealthy individuals, which challenges a simple link between poverty and criminality.1 mark
• a strong answer concludes that inequality is a major cause of a significant amount of recorded crime, particularly property crime linked to poverty, but that it cannot fully explain crime on its own, since labelling, subcultural values and crime among the wealthy show that other processes are also at work.1 mark

Nothing ticked yet - 12 available