Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee It’s been 15 years since allegations first emerged of Britain’s involvement in the torture of those suspected of the 9/11 terror attacks, and earlier this month (July 2018) an official report has finally been released which reveals the ‘true’ extent of Britain’s compliance with the USA’s programme of torture.
According to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), Britain’s involvement amounted to at least 13 occasions of British agents witnessing suspects being mistreated and having been informed (but done nothing about) of mistreatment by their foreign counterparts or detainees more than 150 times.
The report found that British agents weren’t directly involved in torture themselves, but the strategy of British intelligence was to ‘outsource’ the interrogation process to those who they knew used ‘enhanced techniques such as stress positions, sleep deprivation and beatings.
The British effectively turned a blind eye to the fact that the USA was in breach of the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. They were so ‘blind’ in fact that they ignored the fact that at one detention centre detainees were kept in containers so small that they could neither stand or lie down, getting around this particular breach of human rights by simply building interrogation portacabins which were large enough to comfortably accommodate the prisoners.
So why did this happen?
Following 9/11 the security and intelligent services were under intense pressure to find and prosecute those responsible, but also to find information which might prevent future terrorist attacks. The problem with using such techniques, however, is that they might well just serve to increase recruitment to the same terrorist networks the authorities are trying to quash.
Relevance to A-level sociology
This seems to be a good example of Britain being involved in a ‘state crime’, also a good example of the extent of barriers to researching powerful actors: it’s taken 15 years for this official report to be conducted, and even this doesn’t tell us the whole story: Theresa May refused permission for four key officers to give evidence on national security grounds, so the true extent of Britain’s complicity in state crime may not surface for many years to come!
A few hints and tips on how I would have answered the crime and deviance with theory and methods exam, June 2018
Answers to the AQA’s A-level sociology crime with theory and methods exam, June 2018… Just a few thoughts to put students out of their misery. (Ideas my own, not endorsed by the AQA).
Please scroll down for links to other papers!
I won’t produce the exact questions below, just the gist…
Q01 – Outline two ways in which gender may influence the risk of being a victim of crime (4)
Difficulty – easy
Men and masculinity – aggressiveness, linked to higher levels male victims of street crime.
Women and domestic violence – linked to patriarchal norms, gender roles.
And then ideally explain how they differentially effect at least two ethnic groups.
Q02 – Three criticisms of the labelling theory of crime (6)
Difficulty – anywhere from easy to difficult…
If you’ve realised this is a ‘stock question’ that’s been waiting to happen for a while, easy, but if you’re not prepared…. it’s tricky to get beyond the ‘deterministic’ criticism.
If you scroll down to the bottom of my 2016 post on the labelling theory of crime, you’ll find five criticisms at the end of it!
Q03 – Analyse two reasons for social class differences in official crime statistics (10)
Difficulty – easy
The item clearly directs you to one application of labelling theory and one application of ‘underlying differences’.
Police and courts more likely to label wc/ Underclass behaviour as criminal – apply Cicourel. Contrast to white collar crime going unnoticed.
Greater motivation due to poverty (risk) and opportunity… link to left realism, opportunity structures.
Q04 Evaluate sociological contributions to our understanding of the relationship between the media and crime (30)
Difficulty – medium
Fair question, difficult/ niche topic.
The item directs you to relative deprivation and moral panics so you can apply strain theory, Marxism, and interactionism – quite easy.
Then New Media – so cyber crime maybe linked to postmodernism.
Of course, anyone whose done the media option will have an unfair advantage here. This is something of a problem, then again I can say the same about any of my students getting a question on globalisation and crime, given that they do the global development option.
Difficulty – easy
Q05 – Outline and explain two disadvantages of using laboratory experiments in sociological research (10)
This my very simply ‘research’ project task for summer timetable 2018. I’m experimenting with going back to a very open ended project!
This my very simply ‘research’ project task for summer timetable 2018. I’m experimenting with going back to a very open ended project!
The AQA Sociology specification states that you should be able to cite examples of your own research, hence this summer term research project (which is also useful for introducing theories of crime and deviance.
Task
Select one ‘type’ of crime from the list below and produce a 1500 -2000 word report applying perspectives and incorporating some independent research exploring how and why this crime occurs.
Examples of crimes you might look at
Burglary
Theft
Domestic violence
Corporate crime
State violence
Fraud
Knife crime/ gun crime
Subcultures
Drug dealers
Terrorism
Any other type of crime or deviance of your choice
Section 1: Introduction
Outline what crime you’ve chose to focus on, define it, and provide a few basic statistics to outline the extent of it.
Section 2: Theoretical context
Summarise how conflict, consensus and action theories would explain this crime. Use the following links or your main text books as necessary:
Find at least three (ideally more) pieces of contemporary (last 10 years) independent research conducted on this crime – this might be by official government sources, or specialist criminologists.
Summarise these pieces of research and use them to evaluate the above perspectives (which are supported, which are not.)
Section 4: Methods section (optional)
If you find there are significant gaps in your knowledge not covered by available literature, outline what research methods you might employ to find out more.
Timing: you have until the end of summer term timetable to hand in a 1500-2000 word research project.
How to get full marks for a 20 mark theory essay in A-level sociology
Below is an example of an abbreviated (by me) marked response to the 20 mark theory essay which came up in the 2017 A-level sociology paper.
The specific question under investigation in this case is: ‘Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate the view that conflict approaches are more useful than consensus approaches to our understanding of society’ (20).
The example is taken from the 2017 Education with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website).
The Question with Item
The Mark Scheme (top band only)
Student Response:
Sociology is divided between conflict and consensus approaches. The former believe there is harmony in society because of shared values (Functionalists), the later believe society is not harmonious but based on a division between a dominant and subordinate group (Marxists/ Feminists)
Some sociologists argue conflict approaches are more useful than consensus approaches for understanding society – Marxists view society as a conflict between the Bourgeosie (ruling class) and proletariat. They argue there is no harmony because the former exploit the later to create profit and keep their businesses running. The proletariat feel frustrated and alienated because they don’t control the means of production and technological advancement means many are losing their jobs and being made redundant. This all serves the interests of the ruling class who look for new, innovative ways to increase their profits. Marxists argue that certain aspects of society which appear functional are simply a false consciousness – making it appear the Bourgeoisie care about their workers but in reality they don’t for example health and safety laws exist so the proletariat are fit to keep working. However, Marxism only looks at the economic contribution of society and argues that all other institutions are influenced by the economy. Yet many would disagree, arguing that the purpose of the family or religion is to provide comfort, not profit for the Bourgeoisie.
Moreover, labelling theory also argue that conflict approaches act as a better understanding to society than consensus approaches. As an action theory, it argues that if we believe that an event is real, then it will have real consequences. Therefor they look at labelling in society and how there is link between conflict and power (item C) – an individual is given a label in society which influences their behaviour. Becker found that if a student is labelled as deviant then they are more likely to underachieve in school because they accepted that label as a self-fulfilling prophecy. When labels are given from those in higher authority, then they become a master status and become a dominant feature of the individual, which can lead to a deviant career. This also happens with certain crimes – e.g. those with the drug label are more likely to have the crime and the label enforced. However, LT is criticized for not taking into account wider structural features of society such as how capitalism influences people’s behaviour.
However consensus theories are critical (repeats question)… they argue societies are based on shared values and value consensus which allows institutions to harmoniously work together (item C). Parsons argues that this is because of functional prerequisites. Firstly there is economic adaptation to society to meet the economic needs of members, there is goal attainment where society create goals and allocates resources to these goals – the role of government. Then there is integration so the different institutions can meet share goals – the media, education, religion. Finally there is latency where the family socialises individuals into shared norms that society needs: instrumental and expressive role. Thus society hasn’t collapsed because it has a shared value system.
However, functionalism is criticised by postmodernists because it has an absolutist view of society as being functional for all. It neglects the fact that society is fragmented and diverse and the rise of different social movements like black lives matter or Feminism contradict the view that individuals form cohesive communities.
In conclusion it seems Functionalism as a consensus theory has relatively good ideas… for example that social change in society is a result of increasing complexity of society and to ensure that society doesn’t move into a state of anomie so equilibrium occur, different bits of society adapting to compensate.
However conflict theory seems more useful in understanding our society where there is complexity and no longer individuals who follow the same norms and values but rather join different groups which enhance their individual personal beliefs.
Examiner Commentary:
Well, at least one student’s been paying attention for the last couple of years!
Mark: 20/20
Signposting
This post has primarily been written to help students revise for their A-level sociology exams.
A-level SOCIOLOGY Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 1 7192/3 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods Published: Autumn 2017
How to get full marks for a 10 mark ‘item’ question in sociology A-level.
Below is an example of an abbreviated (by me) marked response to a 10 mark ‘analyse with the item question’ which achieved a top band-mark, 10/10 in fact!
The example is taken from the 2017 Education with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website).
The Question with Item
The Mark Scheme (top band only)
Student Response:
Point one
One way deviant subcultures may respond to the difficulties of achieving mainstream goals is by offering alternative ways of attaining success. Cohen found that working class boys often felt a strain to achieve in the middle class education system.
This is because the education system did not offer them equal chance of attaining mainstream goals (item A) because it not have the same norms as them and the boys experienced a culture clash.
As a result the boys responded by creating a subculture which revolved around an alternative status hierarchy, valuing hostility and spite, rewarding behavior mainstream society condemned.
They wanted the same goals as the middle class: status and success but their inability to attain so led them to achieving status from their peers through truanting and vandalism.
This means that deviant subcultures look for different ways to attain mainstream goals when the opportunities to do so are taken from them. However, Cohen is criticized for assuming that the working class boys all had the same shared goals: not all of them considered themselves a failure.
Point two
Cloward and Ohlin argue that not all deviant subcultures respond to the difficulties of achieving mainstream goals in the same way. They argue that the neighbourhood a person lives in creates different types of subculture in response to attaining goals.
Unstable neighbourhoods (item A) can reproduce criminal subcultures, creating an apprenticeship for crime and allowing people to socialise with adult criminals, meaning that children turn to utilitarian crime such as theft to achieve consumerist goals.
On the other hand, deprived neighbourhoods create conflict subcultures where high rates of unemployment and social disintegration mean people turn towards non utilitarian crime due to frustration. This means people turn to crime out of frustration, not to gain status.
However, this is deterministic, as not all people from deprived neighbourhoods turn to crime.
Examiner Commentary:
Mark: 10/10
KT’s commentary:
This looks like overkill to me, I would have thought this is easily 10/10!
Note that you can still achieve full marks while referring to dated sociology!
Source:
A-level
SOCIOLOGY
Feedback on the Examinations
Student responses and commentaries: Paper 1 7192/3 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods
Published: Autumn 2017
Two examples of marked exam scripts from the AQA: one candidate achieved 3/6, the other achieved 6/6.
Together these should give you a good example of the standards of marking on the short mark outline and explain questions which appear on the AQA’s A-level sociology papers 1 and 3
Below is an example of two actual marked response to a 6 mark ‘outline question’, marked by AQA examiners.
The example is taken from the 2017 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website) and the specific question is:
Outline three functions that crime and deviance may perform (6)
While this example is taken from 4 mark outline question from the education paper, the general advice below on how to answer such questions applies equally both the 4 and 6 mark outline questions on both A level sociology papers 3 and 1.
Two marks for each of three appropriate functions clearly outlined or one mark for each appropriate function partially outlined, such as:
boundary maintenance (1 mark); the social reaction to crime and deviance by media and courts reaffirms society’s shared values (+1 mark)
deviance brings about social change (1 mark); new ideas or institutions always initially appear as deviance from existing norms (+1 mark)
minor deviance acts as a safety valve (1 mark); it diverts potentially dangerous motivations into less harmful channels (+1 mark)
it acts as a warning (1 mark); a high level of deviance indicates an institution is not functioning properly and needs reform (+1 mark)
crime and deviance create employment (1 mark); their existence provides work for those in the media, the criminal justice system, moral entrepreneurs etc (+1 mark).
Other relevant material should be credited.
No marks for no relevant points.
Marked exemplar 1:
KT’s commentary
This candidate got 3/6
The second point and explanation is just barely enough!
Marked exemplar 2:
KT’s Commentary
This is a good example of HOW TO DO IT!
Three clear functions (highlighted in boxes) with three clear explanations, underlined.
It is also good practice as this candidate does to use examples… the example works better to my mind in the last point and secures them with a guaranteed 6/6/
It must have take quite a while to find such a ‘classic’ example of ‘perfect form’ for a 6 mark outline question. Not many scripts are this clearly 6/6!
Sources:
A-level SOCIOLOGY Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 3 7192/3 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods
(Published: Autumn 2017)
The AQA’s 2017 Paper 3 Sociology (7192/3) Mark Scheme.
NB – the first document is NOT available on the AQA website, but any teacher should have access to it via eaqa. I’m sharing it here in order to make the exam standards more accessible, and to support the AQA in their equality and meritocratic agendas, because there will be some poor students somewhere whose teachers aren’t organised enough to access this material for them.
Examples of actual student responses marked by the AQA, showing you the standards expected to get certain marks!
Below is an example of an actual marked response to a 4 mark ‘outline question’, marked by AQA examiners.
The example is taken from the 2017 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods Paper (paper and mark schemes available from the AQA website) and the specific question is:
Outline two reasons for ethnic differences in criminal conviction rates (4)
The mark scheme for this question is as below:
Two marks for each of two appropriate reasons clearly outlined or one mark for each appropriate reason partially outlined, such as:
The police are racist (1 mark); they are less likely to stop and search white people and so they are less likely to detect their offences (+1 mark).
Some minority ethnic groups are relatively deprived (1 mark); and so they commit more utilitarian crime (+1 mark).
Ethnic minorities have a younger average age profile (1 mark); and offenders in general are disproportionately young (+1 mark).
Some ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes against the person (1 mark); and so they are more likely to be witnessed by victims, identified and caught (+1 mark).
Other relevant material should be credited.
No marks for no relevant points.
While this example is taken from 4 mark outline question from the education paper, the general advice below on how to answer such questions applies equally both the 4 and 6 mark outline questions on both A level sociology papers 3 and 1.
The first candidate’s response above is an excellent example of a classic ‘1+1’ strategy…. give a reason and explain HOW this leads to differences.
Obviously the second response is a good example of ‘how not to do it!’. You need to get yer answers right!
The candidate could have selected any of the other ‘identifiers’ in the mark scheme above to pick up an additional two marks.
Sources:
A-level SOCIOLOGY Feedback on the Examinations Student responses and commentaries: Paper 3 7192/3 Crime and Deviance with Theory and Methods
(Published: Autumn 2017)
The AQA’s 2017 Paper 3 Sociology (7192/3) Mark Scheme.
NB – the first document is NOT available on the AQA website, but any teacher should have access to it via eaqa. I’m sharing it here in order to make the exam standards more accessible, and to support the AQA in their equality and meritocratic agendas, because there will be some poor students somewhere whose teachers aren’t organised enough to access this material for them.
The case of Ahmed Hassan, the 18 year old Iraqi asylum seeker who planted a homemade bomb onto a London tube train in September 2017, injuring 51 people is a good candidate for the most serious crime of 2017. Had his device worked properly (it ‘only’ created a fireball rather than actually exploding) dozens of people would have died.
Hassan was sentenced to life in March 2018, and ordered to serve a minimum of 34 years.
Hassan claimed that he never wanted to kill anyone, he said he was depressed and seeking attention and thrills, having watched Mission Impossible films and developed the fantasy of being a fugitive pursued by Interpol across Europe.
However, there was also the fact that he seemed to have harboured intense loathing of the UK, which he blamed for his death in an explosion in Iraq a decade ago. When he arrived in the UK in 2015 (illegally in the back of a lorry) he told immigration officials that he’d been seized by Islamic State and ‘trained to kill’ (although he claimed to have made this up in court); and he had previously been seen watching extremist videos and apparently sending money to Isis. He’d also told one of his teachers that he had a ‘duty to hate Britain’.
What’s interesting about this case, is how all of the ‘standard’ preventive measures just failed to work….he had been given a foster couple who ‘showered him with love’ and was getting on well with his education – in fact, he seemed to be flourishing, having been made student of the year in 2017 in his college in Surrey: although he actually used his £20 Amazon voucher prize to buy chemicals for his bomb, which he then packed with knives, screwdrivers and nails.
Hassan had also been referred to the ‘Prevent’ deradicalisation programme, but this clearly didn’t work, and social services didn’t even warn his foster parents about his extremist leanings.
Relevance to A-level sociology…
At first glance, this seems to be a good case study which illustrates the necessity the take a stronger line on illegal immigration…if someone can commit a crime of this magnitude with all of the Preventative measure we already have in place, surely it’s impossible to prevent something like this happening again? Maybe a tougher line on immigration would have prevented this?
However, what we’re not seeing with just one dramatic case study is the bigger picture – all of the other cases that the authorities are preventing with their various crime control techniques… and let’s not forget that in complex risk society it is practically impossible to eradicate all ‘bad things’ from happening, so perhaps we just have to need to learn to live with this without panicking unduly.
This could also possibly show us the failings of ‘categorical suspicion’ as a means of crime control – possibly the fact that Hassan had ‘good foster parents’ and he was doing well at college were enough for the authorities to disregard all the other warning signs?
The number of violent crimes and sex offences recorded by police in England and Wales have more than doubled in the last four years.
This is an excellent article by the BBC summarising this trend, with a pretty shocking embedded video in which reporters witness two serious crimes: one ‘moped mugging’ and another just ‘regular’ attempted mugging in a park.
The latest police figures for the 12 months to September from 44 forces show:
68,968 robbery offences, up 29%
138,045 sex offences, up 23%
37,443 knife crime offences, up 21%
1,291,405 violent crime offences, up 20%
However the ONS says higher-harm violent offences, such as knife crime occur in relatively low volumes, and also tend to be concentrated in cities and are therefore not “well-measured” by the Crime Survey.
Analysis (from the BBC)
Although there’s likely to be a dispute about the accuracy of the police crime figures because they hinge, to some extent, on the way forces log offences, how pro-active they are and the willingness of victims to come forward, they clearly demonstrate a rapidly rising caseload.
At the same time, the number of police officers has continued to fall: in the 12 months to last September, down 930 to 121,929. That combination – rising crime, declining police numbers – is creating enormous strain for forces.
Applying Perspectives to explain this increase in crime:
From Right Realist perspective, this increase crime will be a direct result of the declining police numbers, although the decline is so small, it probably doesn’t explain that much of the decrease.
From a Left Realist perspective, it could be due to increasing levels of marginalisation and relative deprivation (more likely?)
I think we can rule out postmodernism in the above cases – I don’t think (I might be wrong) that serious violent and sexual offences are done for the ‘thrill of the act’ – I’m fairly sure criminals don’t enjoy mugging people, for example.
From an Interactionist point of view, this increase in Police Recorded Crime (NB not reflected in the CSEW) is just an artefact of more people reporting crime – so there’s not necessarily a corresponding underlying increase.
What do you think the reasons are for the increase in the amount of violent crime recorded by the police in recent years?
knife crime in London seems to be increasing rapidly, but how would left and right realists tackle this? Or is this all just a moral panic?
According to a recent BBC news article, London’s murder rate is increasing rapidly, so rapidly in fact that it’s just overtaken the murder in New York’s, a city historically notorious for its problems with violent crime.
So is this just a moral panic, or is this recent increase in violent crime something we should be taking seriously?
What are the recent statistics?
So far in 2018 the MET police have investigated 46 murders, and the rate seems to be increasing alarmingly:
8 murders were investigated in January
15 murders were investigated in February
22 murders were investigated in March.
Of the 44 murder investigations so far launched by the MET in 2018, 31 have been the results of stabbings.
So is this just a moral panic?
Focusing just on knife crime here, because this is the implement used in nearly 3/4s of all murders, the short answer is, probably not….
This recent increase seems to be in the context of a longer term increase in knife crime…
Although London’s knife crime rate is twice the national average…
So while there does seem to be an issue with London’s knife crime rate increasing (rapidly!) this may not be representative of the country as a whole!
What’s causing this increase in Knife crime and murder?
A lot of the debate has focused on the fact that the police are stopping and searching fewer people. Police have become more withdrawn and are less pro-active in preventing crime through the use of stop and search:
Source: Ministry of Justice/ BBC
There is anecdotal evidence from the police that this has led to an increase in knife crime because young people are now more inclined to carry knives because they know they are less likely to be stopped and searched.
(Ironically it was Theresa May who oversaw this reduction as home secretary, partly responding to fears that the disproportionate use of stop and search against young black men was alienating huge numbers of people.)
Interestingly, knife crime is increasing despite a stiffening of penalties for possessing an offensive weapon:
Source: Ministry of Justice/ BBC
You’re significantly more likely to get a custodial sentence today than compared to 2009, but this doesn’t seem to be putting people off carrying or using knives. I guess the ‘less likely to get caught’ outweighs the ‘likeliness of a stiff penalty’ or the ‘risk of being a victim if I don’t carry one’ factors in the cost-benefit calculation.
Right realists would agree with this approach – of increasing stop and search, of going back to a more random stop and search strategy.
Do we need a public health approach to reducing knife crime?
Labour MPs Sarah Jones (chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime) and Dianne Abbott (both speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme), have both suggested that London needs to adopting a public health approach to reducing Knife crime – which means, for example:
engaging in major intervention work with youth workers
going into schools, changing the social norms, educating kids, teaching them what it is to be a man, teaching them how they don’t need to carry knives.
Working with mental health charities
Both point to case studies of New York and Glasgow, where such interventions have been adopted with both seeing significant reductions in violent crime (while at the same time also having a lighter touch approach to stop and search.
These policies are very left realist in nature – and both of the above MPs are skeptical about the usefulness of increasing the role of random stop and search – pointing out the toxic legacy it leaves in terms of police-community relations.
Knife crime and other violent crimes seem to be increasing recently in England and Wales, so this topic is of continued relevance within the crime and deviance module.
