Throughout the semester, lectures start with a true crime story to connect theory with real-life events. This assignment asks you to select one crime story and use one criminological theory to deepen your understandi
CRIM1000 – Semester 2, 2025
Crime Story Analysis: Theory as a Lens for Understanding
Due Date: November 10th, 4:00 PM (Exam Week)
Word Count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 40% (40 marks)
Assignment Overview
Throughout the semester, lectures start with a true crime story to connect theory with real-life events. This assignment asks you to select one crime story and use one criminological theory to deepen your understanding of why it occurred.
You will:
- Tell the story in a compelling narrative form
- Analyse it using criminological theory
- Reflect on your own positionality and biases
Think of theory as a lens that reveals patterns, connections, and explanations beyond surface-level facts.
Assignment Components
Part A: Tell Your Crime Story (600–700 words)
- Choose a real crime story. Examples:
- High-profile media case
- Historical crime
- Local or community incident
- Family-related incident (with sensitivity)
- International crime case
- Write a narrative including:
- Key people involved (offender, victims, others)
- Sequence of events (before, during, after the crime)
- Social, economic, environmental context
- Aftermath and consequences
- Why the story is compelling or significant to you
Tip: Make it engaging, not just a list of facts.
Part B: Unpack Your Story Using Criminological Theory (approx. 1000 words)
- Choose ONE criminological theory from your course readings.
- Explain the theory:
- Key principles
- How these principles explain criminal behaviour
- Apply the theory to your story:
- Show how it illuminates aspects of the crime
- Highlight patterns or explanations that are not obvious
- Discuss limitations of the theory:
- What it cannot explain
- Where it falls short
Use scholarly sources to support your analysis (minimum 6 peer-reviewed references).
Part C: Positionality Statement (approx. 200 words)
- Reflect on why you chose the story
- Consider your personal background and perspective
- Acknowledge potential biases or insights you bring
Suggested Structure
- Introduction – why the story matters, preview of your argument
- Crime Story – your narrative (Part A)
- Theoretical Lens – explanation of your chosen theory (Part B)
- Making Sense of the Story – applying the theory
- Limitations & Reflections – theory’s weaknesses and positionality
- Conclusion – insights gained from theory
- References – APA 7th edition
- AI Usage Statement – mandatory
Research and Evidence
- Use scholarly sources to support theory and context
- Use reliable sources for case information (news reports, court docs, official reports)
- Ensure you have enough information about your case
Ethical Considerations
- Treat all people in your story with dignity and respect
- Protect the privacy of individuals, especially if personally known
- Be sensitive to victims and ongoing impacts
Assessment Rubric (40 Marks)
| Criteria | High Distinction (7) | Distinction (6) | Credit (5) | Pass (4) | Marginal Fail (3) | Fail (1–2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crime Story Narrative (10) | Compelling, detailed, authentic voice | Well-told, clear personal connection | Adequate storytelling, some engagement | Basic story, limited engagement | Simple, minimal detail | Very poor, detached |
| Theoretical Understanding & Application (10) | Exceptional, original application | Strong, thoughtful application | Adequate, competent | Limited application | Poor, little analysis | Missing or meaningless |
| Research Integration (5) | Outstanding synthesis, seamless | Good integration, supports own thinking | Adequate, some synthesis | Basic, limited synthesis | Minimal integration | Very limited or none |
| Critical Analysis & Limitations (5) | Sophisticated, original | Good critical evaluation | Adequate | Basic analysis | Minimal | None |
| Positionality & Reflection (5) | Thoughtful, authentic | Good, clear voice | Adequate, some insight | Basic, limited reflection | Minimal | Missing |
| Presentation & Writing (5) | Excellent style, clear, within limit | Good style, minor errors | Adequate, some errors | Basic writing | Poor, multiple errors | Very poor, over/under limit |