How to Write a Criminology Case Study Assignment

Step 1: Read the brief like a lawyer, not a reader

Before you touch the case study, pick out the “instruction verbs” and turn them into actions:

• Analyse = break the situation into parts and explain relationships (cause, context, opportunity, risk).

• Evaluate = weigh strengths and weaknesses of explanations, not just list them.

• Recommend = propose realistic steps that follow logically from your analysis.

Now check what you must include (for example: “use two theories”, “include policy”, “use academic sources”, “consider ethics/safeguarding”). These are not optional extras, they’re usually the easiest marks on the table.

A quick trick that genuinely helps: write your section headings to mirror the marking criteria. If the rubric says “critical evaluation”, make a heading that forces you to do it.

Step 2: Turn the scenario into “case facts” you can actually use

Case studies are written like narratives, but your assignment should treat them like evidence. Spend ten minutes extracting facts into a simple set of notes. You’re looking for patterns, not drama:

• who is involved and what relationships exist

• what behaviours repeat (time, place, method, escalation)

• what “controls” exist or fail (guardianship, supervision, security, reporting, multi-agency response)

• what harm is caused (to victims/survivors, community, the person offending)

• what is missing or unclear (and how that limits your conclusions)

This step stops you guessing. It also gives you clean “hooks” to hang theory on later.

Step 3: Choose theories that fit the facts (two strong lenses beat five weak ones)

The fastest way to make a case study feel “AI-ish” is to throw in a generic paragraph on strain theory, then a generic paragraph on labelling, then a generic paragraph on social learning, without tying any of it to the scenario.

Instead, choose two lenses that explain different parts of the case:

Lens A: Why the behaviour is happening (motivation/learning/controls).
This could be social learning (peer influence and reinforcement), control theories (weak bonds, low self-control), strain (stressors/blocked goals), or developmental perspectives (where age, impulsivity, and environment matter).

Lens B: How the behaviour is happening (opportunity/situational conditions).
This is where routine activity, rational choice, situational crime prevention, or environmental criminology can work well, because many case studies include time/place patterns, weak guardianship, and repeated opportunities.

If your scenario is about victimisation (especially domestic abuse, sexual violence, coercive control, stalking), you can add a third lens only if the brief allows it and the facts justify it, often a feminist or victimology framework, because it can help you analyse power, coercion, barriers to reporting, and safeguarding.

Step 4: Write a one-sentence argument (your thesis) before you draft anything

A thesis stops your assignment becoming a list. It should be specific and arguable, not a bland signpost.

Here’s the type of sentence that works:

“Overall, the case is best explained by a combination of learned behaviour and situational opportunity: peer reinforcement increases the likelihood of offending, while predictable routines and weak guardianship make incidents easier to repeat.”

That single line gives you direction. Every section should either support it, refine it, or challenge it.

Step 5: Structure the assignment so the analysis appears early (and stays visible)

A clean case study structure is:

Introduction (short, purposeful): what the case is about, what lenses you will apply, what your argument is.
Case summary (very short): only the facts you will actually use.
Theory application 1: define briefly → apply to facts → explain what it clarifies.
Theory application 2: same pattern, different lens.
Critical evaluation: limitations, competing explanations, ethical issues, and data gaps.
Recommendations: practical steps linked to your analysis.
Conclusion: your final judgement, not a recap of the story.

If you keep your “case summary” too long, you’re signalling to the marker that you’re avoiding analysis. Two short paragraphs is often enough.

Step 6: What “application” looks like in real writing (a paragraph model)

Markers don’t reward theory definitions. They reward correct use of theory. A practical paragraph shape is:

1. Claim (what the theory suggests)

2. Evidence from the scenario (specific detail)

3. Explanation (how the detail supports the claim)

4. Judgement (what this means for risk, harm, or response)

5. Limit (what the theory doesn’t capture)

Example (in plain style, not “textbook voice”):

Social learning theory helps explain why the behaviour continues, because the scenario suggests the person offending is surrounded by peers who normalise and reward the conduct. The repeated incidents and the lack of immediate consequences create reinforcement, especially if status or money is gained. However, social learning alone does not explain why offences occur in the same places and time windows; that pattern points more strongly to opportunity and weak guardianship, which needs a situational lens as well.

Notice what makes it “human”: it is anchored to case facts, it uses ordinary language, and it makes a judgement rather than reciting definitions.

Step 7: Bring in official context (but don’t drown the case in statistics)

Used properly, official sources make your analysis more credible because they stop your work sounding like opinion. You don’t need many—two or three well-placed references can do the job.

If your case study touches on prevalence, hidden crime, or under-reporting, you can refer to the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), which explicitly includes crimes that are not reported to or recorded by police. That’s useful when explaining why a case may not appear in recorded crime data, or why victims/survivors might not report. Here’s an official source you can cite and link: Crime Survey for England and Wales (Office for National Statistics).

If your case study includes charging decisions, evidential issues, or public interest reasoning, you can anchor your discussion in prosecution principles. The Code for Crown Prosecutors (CPS) sets out how prosecution decisions are approached at a high level, which helps you avoid “common sense” guessing.

Step 8: Recommendations that don’t sound generic (and actually follow from your analysis)

This is where many case studies collapse into vague lines like “increase policing” or “offer counselling”. Instead, write recommendations like you’re proposing real operational steps.

A good recommendation answers four questions in one paragraph:

• What should happen (specific action)?

• Who should do it (agency/role)?

• Why will it help (link back to your analysis/theory)?

• How will you know it worked (a measure)?

For example, if your analysis shows repeat offending in a particular location and time window, a situational recommendation could be targeted guardianship at those times, improved lighting/CCTV, access control, or place-based patrols, whatever fits the scenario. If your analysis shows peer reinforcement, your individual/community recommendation might focus on diversion, mentoring, education, family support, or structured activities that interrupt the peer pattern. If it’s a victim-focused case, your recommendations should foreground safeguarding, referral routes, and reducing barriers to reporting.

Write fewer recommendations, but make each one defensible.

Step 9: Keep your tone clear and your referencing tidy

To avoid sounding “machine-written”, do three things:

1. Use short sentences when making key points.

2. Use cautious academic language when evidence is limited (“this suggests…”, “it may indicate…”) instead of overclaiming.

3. Reference only what you genuinely used.

Also, don’t hide behind jargon. In criminology, clarity is a strength.

A final note you can include in your blog (ethical + SEO-friendly)

If you run an academic support site, it’s smart to frame the blog as learning guidance: planning, structure, research, and editing support. You can add one internal link naturally, like this:

If you want help turning a case scenario into a clear plan, tightening your structure, or checking whether your theory application actually answers the brief, see our criminology assignment help page for guidance and support.

Common reasons students lose marks (short list, no fluff)

Students usually drop marks because they: (a) summarise too much, (b) use theories that don’t fit the facts, (c) give recommendations that aren’t linked to analysis, or (d) avoid evaluation by writing only “pros/cons” without making a judgement.

If you fix those four issues, your case study will immediately read more like a strong university submission.