Crime and Social Stratification

Assignment Brief

Crime and social stratification - 2000 word (maximum including reference list) critical commentary. Allow 1500 words for the written commentary (plus or minus ten per cent) and approximately 500 words for the reference list (that should equate to around 20 references)

Coursework 2: Critical commentary to focus on Phase Two: Crime and Social Stratification: age and crime

Critical argument based on one of the issues covered in the workshops drawing on relevant literature and theory

Present in Word document using 12 point font (Times New Roman) or equivalent size alternative font, double line-spaced

Title page to include:

1. Your student number
2. Module number and title (306CRM Crime and Social Diversity)
3. Module leader

Title (Coursework 2: Critical commentary)

Year (2018/19)

• The assignment
• A list of references at the end of each assignment to include all of the references in the text of the assignment listed in alphabetical order of lead author surname.

Present the critical commentary in A4 Word format using 12-point font text with double line spacing. Do NOT present in single line-spacing. the word count for this assignment at the end of the text before the reference list.

1. Be critically reflective.
2. You may write from your perspective (first person)
3. Assess key issues from workshop analyses and draw your own conclusions
4. Present your argument backed up by evidence (from proper sources properly referenced)
5. Demonstrate awareness of how your chosen topics relate to other module topics (synthesis)
6. Relate to theoretical framework

Critical commentary or a critical analysis paper. A critical commentary is basically your chance to evaluate a referenced work by drawing in on aspects that you may agree with, and offering a critique for the points that you may feel have not been expressed correctly. For instance, you may be asked to identify bias, consider the context of the text and propose an alternative depiction of the issue.

A critical commentary involves exploring a particular social issue and evaluating its effects and consequences. It should take the form of the development of an argument from your own standpoint; that is, your own opinion based on your informed understanding of the issue and with an appropriate evidence base to substantiate your view. Ordinarily it would be a concise statement produced from the kind of conceptual plan that is the subject of coursework 1, except in this case you will choose one of the topics from phase two of the module: Crime and Social Stratification for the critical commentary. First you will choose your broad topic area, for example age and crime or gender and crime, and then you will need to focus on a specific issue within that area. Please note this assignment is NOT AN ESSAY. If you write it as a typical essay you will be marked down.

The sources for the development of your ideas and argument - for example:

Fear of crime and high crime levels have been inexorably linked to physical deterioration in neighbourhoods (Wilson and Kelling 1982).

Module learning outcomes:

• Demonstrate a critical understanding of the relationship between crime and social diversity
• Analyse the relationship between crime and the effects of social change
• Demonstrate a critical understanding of the differential experience of crime by particular social groups.
• Explain how specific social groups experience criminal justice in Britain.

Sample Answer

Critical Commentary: Age and Crime

Understanding crime through the lens of age provides a unique insight into how social stratification operates in Britain. Age-related crime patterns are well documented, yet remain deeply misunderstood due to generalisations and stereotypes, especially about young people. In this commentary, I critically explore how age intersects with social structures to shape both criminal behaviour and responses to it. My focus lies on youth crime, how it is socially constructed, and how societal responses contribute to social stratification and marginalisation of specific age groups.

From a sociological standpoint, the relationship between age and crime is not simply one of cause and effect. Instead, I view it through a critical lens informed by conflict and labelling theories. Age becomes a factor in how certain behaviours are criminalised, particularly when they are committed by younger individuals. For example, acts such as loitering, graffiti, and group gatherings may be interpreted as "anti-social" or "threatening" when youth are involved, while similar behaviours from older adults are often overlooked. This double standard reflects underlying ageism and class bias.

The concept of moral panic, originally coined by Stanley Cohen (1972), is particularly relevant in how youth crime is discussed in the media. In the case of the Mods and Rockers in the 1960s, media amplification created a social panic that led to increased policing and harsher penalties. This legacy continues today, where teenagers, especially from working-class or minority backgrounds, are often portrayed as dangerous, criminally inclined, or delinquent. The portrayal fuels public fear, which, in turn, justifies punitive policy measures. I believe this cycle illustrates how youth crime is not just about actual criminal acts but about societal reactions based on age and class.

Research indicates that the majority of crimes are committed by individuals aged between 15 and 25 (Home Office, 2022). However, this statistic should not be interpreted as a direct result of age. Instead, it should be seen in the broader context of social exclusion, limited opportunities, and systemic disadvantages faced by young people. Farrington’s (2003) longitudinal study of boys in London demonstrated how early-life disadvantages such as poor housing, low parental supervision, and school exclusion were significant predictors of future offending.

As someone who has grown up in an urban area where youth-police relations are tense, I have seen how stop-and-search disproportionately targets young people. The Macpherson Report (1999) into the death of Stephen Lawrence highlighted institutional racism in the police, but the findings also hinted at institutional ageism, as the young are routinely over-policed. This observation resonates with Becker’s labelling theory (1963), which argues that deviance is not inherent in the act but a result of societal labels. Once a young person is labelled a "troublemaker," they may internalise the label and continue offending, a process known as the self-fulfilling prophecy.

The socioeconomic context is critical here. Youth from deprived backgrounds often have fewer social, educational, and economic resources. They may turn to crime not out of choice, but because legitimate opportunities for success are blocked. This view aligns with Merton’s strain theory (1938), which suggests that individuals engage in deviance when they are unable to achieve culturally approved goals through legitimate means. For example, in areas where employment opportunities are scarce and schools are underfunded, young people may turn to drug dealing or theft as survival strategies.

Youth involvement in crime is also influenced by peer pressure and gang culture, particularly in inner-city areas. However, I believe the concept of "gangs" is also socially constructed and often racialised. As Hallsworth and Young (2008) argue, the “gang talk” in Britain often oversimplifies complex youth group dynamics and ignores the social conditions that give rise to them. For example, black youth are more likely to be portrayed as gang members in media and police narratives, reinforcing racist stereotypes.

It is also worth critically reflecting on governmental responses to youth crime. The UK’s use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and youth curfews disproportionately affect young people. While these measures are presented as necessary for public safety, they often criminalise normal adolescent behaviour and push youth further into the margins of society. Instead of addressing root causes, such as poverty or lack of support services, the state resorts to punitive interventions.

In contrast, Scandinavian models of youth justice, which focus on rehabilitation, education, and restorative justice, provide an alternative perspective. For example, Norway’s emphasis on reintegrating young offenders into society has resulted in some of the lowest reoffending rates in Europe (Tonry, 2014). I think this shows that youth crime can be addressed more effectively through support rather than punishment.

Continued...