This 30 mark question came up on a recent A-level sociology Crime and Deviance exam paper. This post looks at how one would answer it.
For more help with exam advice, see my exams and essays page here.
The full question with item
Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that differences in
crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the result of the way the criminal justice
system operates.
Notes on how to answer
This is a classic question which is begging you to draw on some classic sources. You can see this in the item, the question is asking that you address:
- black people being more to be stopped and searched and sent to prison.
- It’s clearly asking you to evaluate labelling theory.
- And apply left and right realism in your evaluation.
30-Mark A* Answer
(Succinct Version: ~900 words)
Introduction
Differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are clearly shown in official crime statistics. For example, as noted in Item B, Black individuals are significantly more likely to be stopped and searched. They are also more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than White individuals. Some sociologists argue that these patterns reflect systemic bias within the criminal justice system (CJS). This includes racist policing. It also includes discriminatory sentencing. Evidence from sources such as the Macpherson Report (1999) indicates that institutional racism continues to exist. This perspective can be explained by labelling theory. In contrast, alternative views such as Left and Right Realism offer other explanations. They focus on real differences in offending.
Labelling theorists such as Becker argue that deviance is not inherent in an act. It is the result of how others react to it, particularly those in power. When applied to ethnicity and crime, labelling theory suggests that police and courts disproportionately target minority ethnic groups. This is due to stereotypes and societal biases.
Item B supports this view by noting that ethnic minorities are more likely to be criminalised. Empirical data reinforces this. For instance, Home Office statistics show that Black people are stopped and searched nine times more than White people. Such over-policing can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ethnic minorities are more likely to be labelled as criminal. This increases their contact with the CJS, even if their actual offending rates do not differ significantly.
Furthermore, the labelling process may lead to deviant careers. Once labelled, individuals can experience rejection from mainstream opportunities. This rejection may lead them to commit further crime as a means of coping or survival. It reinforces the initial label.
Despite its insights, labelling theory has been criticised for failing to explain why certain groups are labelled more than others. It tends to ignore wider structural factors. These include poverty and marginalisation, which may drive criminal behaviour in the first place. In this context, Left Realists offer a more materialist explanation.
Lea and Young, for example, argue that higher crime rates among some ethnic minorities are real. They assert it’s not just a product of labelling. They point to relative deprivation, marginalisation, and subculture as causes of crime. Ethnic minority groups are more likely to suffer economic disadvantage. This disadvantage can lead to feelings of resentment and social exclusion. Consequently, crime may become a rational response to blocked opportunities.
Right Realists similarly argue that differences in crime rates reflect real differences in offending. They emphasise a breakdown in informal social control. This issue is particularly evident in inner-city areas. In these areas, single-parent households may lack the authority to control youth behaviour. According to Murray’s underclass theory, a dependency culture can lead to increased criminality in certain groups. The theory also indicates that this issue is exacerbated by a lack of male role models. This is particularly true in some ethnic minorities.
These perspectives challenge the labelling view. They suggest that while CJS bias exists, it does not fully account for ethnic differences in offending. Some groups may genuinely commit more crime due to socio-economic conditions or cultural factors.
Conclusion
Overall, the criminal justice system seems to operate in a racially biased manner. This is evident in stop and search figures. Sentencing disparities are also observed. However, this alone cannot fully explain differences in crime rates between ethnic groups. Labelling theory highlights the role of police stereotypes and social reactions. However, it lacks explanatory power regarding the root causes of offending. More comprehensive explanations are provided by Left and Right Realists. They suggest that wider social inequalities also play a significant role. Cultural dynamics significantly contribute as well.
A more holistic approach, like that of Neo-Marxists such as Hall et al., combines both structural inequalities and state racism. They argue that media moral panics about Black muggers in the 1970s served ideological purposes by diverting attention from capitalism’s crises. This suggests that differences in crime rates are produced both by real structural disadvantage and the way the CJS operates.
Thus, while racism in the CJS is a significant factor, it interacts with broader socio-economic conditions. Differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are not solely due to discrimination but reflect a complex interplay of labelling, deprivation, and social control.
Longer model answer…
This is a longer version for reference with posts linked, NB you probably wouldn’t be able to produce this in 40 minutes!
Question: Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the view that differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the result of the way the criminal justice system operates.
Introduction: Police Racism and the Criminal Justice System
Official crime statistics indicate that individuals from some minority ethnic groups are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned than White individuals. As noted in Item B, Black people are disproportionately stopped and searched and are more likely to end up in prison. These disparities raise the question: are these patterns due to actual differences in criminal behaviour, or do they reflect the discriminatory practices of the criminal justice system (CJS)?
A growing body of evidence supports the view that institutional racism and police bias play a significant role. According to ReviseSociology’s overview of official statistics, Black people are seven times more likely than White people to be stopped and searched and five times more likely to be in prison. This is further backed by research into institutional racism which shows that such disparities persist even when socio-economic variables are controlled for.
The Macpherson Report (1999) famously concluded that the police were institutionally racist following the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Since then, a range of studies has confirmed that ethnic minority groups are more likely to face surveillance, suspicion, and harsher treatment at all stages of the criminal justice process. This view aligns with labelling theory, which offers a powerful explanation for how ethnic minorities come to be over-represented in crime statistics.
Labelling Theory: How the CJS Creates Crime
Labelling theory, rooted in interactionism, argues that deviance is not inherent but socially constructed through the application of labels by those in power. Howard Becker (1963) claimed that deviance occurs when an individual is successfully labelled as deviant by society. Applied to ethnicity, this suggests that ethnic minorities may be stereotyped as more prone to criminal behaviour, leading to increased police attention and harsher penalties.
As summarised here, the key idea is that labels can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Black or Asian youths are seen as ‘suspicious’ or ‘dangerous’, they are more likely to be stopped, searched, and arrested—even if their actual offending rate is not higher. This early criminal justice contact increases the likelihood of being labelled as criminal and subsequently leads to deviant careers.
Item B reflects this process: Black individuals are more likely to be stopped and searched, and more likely to be arrested and imprisoned. These patterns can be explained through the lens of labelling and selective law enforcement. Cicourel’s study of delinquency further supports this view, showing that middle-class youth could ‘negotiate’ their way out of trouble, whereas working-class (and often minority ethnic) youth were more likely to be formally processed.
This labelling can also be internalised. Young ethnic minority individuals who face repeated suspicion may come to see themselves as outsiders, increasing the chance of joining subcultures that reject mainstream values. As Lemert argued, secondary deviance results from societal reaction, not the original act.
Evaluation of Labelling Theory
While labelling theory offers a compelling explanation of how the criminal justice system criminalises ethnic minorities, it has its limitations. First, it fails to explain why certain groups are labelled more than others in the first place. Second, it neglects the actual causes of primary deviance—why people commit crime before they are labelled.
This is where cultural and structural explanations become relevant. For instance, this post on cultural factors points to family breakdown, peer pressure, and street culture as reasons why some ethnic groups—especially young Black males—might be more involved in criminal behaviour. For example, a lack of positive role models or school exclusions may push youth towards gang membership or criminal peer networks.
Left Realist Critique: Real Differences in Offending
Left Realists such as Lea and Young argue that there are real differences in offending between ethnic groups, and these are not just a result of labelling or bias. As explored here, they focus on three key concepts: relative deprivation, marginalisation, and subculture.
Minority ethnic groups are more likely to experience economic hardship, unemployment, and poor housing. This sense of relative deprivation can lead to resentment and a desire for material success, which may not be achievable through legitimate means. This can foster deviant subcultures that offer alternative ways to achieve these goals—often through crime.
Moreover, marginalisation means these groups often lack political power or institutional representation. This can lead to frustration and, in some cases, violence as a form of expression. In this context, differences in crime rates reflect wider inequalities in society, not just CJS bias.
However, Left Realists also acknowledge the role of the media and moral panics in exaggerating Black criminality, which ties back to labelling and the power of dominant narratives.
Right Realist Explanations
Right Realists offer another critique of the labelling view, arguing that individuals are responsible for their actions and that some groups may have weaker moral values or social bonds. According to this post, theorists like Charles Murray argue that the emergence of an “underclass” in some ethnic minority communities—characterised by welfare dependency, single-parent families, and lack of discipline—leads to higher levels of crime.
Right Realists also support tougher policing and situational crime prevention, suggesting that over-policing of some ethnic groups is necessary due to higher rates of criminal behaviour. However, this view has been criticised for victim-blaming and ignoring structural inequalities such as racism, poverty, and exclusion.
Synthesis: A Neo-Marxist Perspective
A more balanced view is offered by Neo-Marxist theorists such as Hall et al. (1978), who combine structural and labelling perspectives. In their study of moral panics about Black muggers in the 1970s, they argued that media and political elites used fears of Black criminality to divert attention from economic crises and maintain control.
As summarised here, Neo-Marxists believe that ethnic minority crime does occur but is a form of resistance to racism and oppression. At the same time, the state and media construct crime narratives that justify aggressive policing and surveillance of these communities. This links both the reality of inequality (Left Realism) and the ideological role of the CJS in maintaining social order (labelling and Marxism).
Neo-Marxism also highlights how stop-and-search, police militarisation, and prison expansion serve political goals—often at the expense of minority groups. Thus, differences in crime rates are not just the product of biased policing, but also of wider economic and ideological processes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the view that differences in crime rates between ethnic groups are mainly the result of the way the criminal justice system operates is strongly supported by labelling theory and empirical evidence of institutional racism. Ethnic minorities, particularly Black people, are over-policed, over-represented in prisons, and more likely to be treated harshly due to stereotypes and discriminatory practices.
However, this explanation is not sufficient on its own. Left and Right Realist theories demonstrate that some differences in offending may be due to real socio-economic and cultural factors, such as deprivation, marginalisation, or weak social control. Right Realists, in particular, highlight individual responsibility, although their approach is criticised for ignoring context.
The most convincing explanation combines both structural and agency-based factors. Neo-Marxists show that the CJS does not operate in a vacuum—it reflects and reinforces deeper inequalities in capitalist societies. Ultimately, differences in crime rates between ethnic groups result from a complex interaction between discriminatory policing, economic exclusion, and cultural responses to marginalisation.
The criminal justice system plays a major role, but it is only part of the picture.
Sources
This question came up in the following AQA A-level sociology crime and deviance exam paper.