Step 1: Choose an actual crime for which you can provide a brief description of both the facts
of the case and people involved. Briefly describe the who, what, when, and where of the crime,
i.e., the known facts and people involved.
Step 2: According to each of the above theoretical perspectives, why did this crime take place?
(To answer this question, you will want to briefly state the main argument(s) of each
perspective and then relate it to the crime. For example, deterrence theory argues that people
are self-interested and the only way to keep them from committing crime is through the threat
of punishment that is certain, severe, and swift. According to deterrence theory, this crime took
place because . . . )
-For each theoretical perspective:
o Does the theoretical perspective do a good or not so good job explaining
your crime? Why?
o Do you believe the perspective offers a good explanation of criminal
behavior (or human behavior) more generally? Why? [are there things the
theoretical perspective can explain, cannot explain, does not consider, etc.?]
Step 3: Which perspective do you think offers the best explanation of the crime you have
chosen to analyze in your paper? Why? If you do not think any of the theoretical perspectives
offers a good explanation of the crime, explain why you think this.
-Whether you think there is a best explanation or not, you should consider:
o What do these theoretical perspectives have in common, and are there
differences between these perspectives or theories within these
perspectives in their explanations of crime?
o Possible points of comparison: Micro, mezzo, macro, process,
structure, tautology, scope, empirically falsifiable.
Sample Solution
