CRIM1000 Semester 2, 2025
Crime Story Analysis: Theory as a Lens for Understanding
Due Date: November 10th 4pm (Exam Week)
Word Count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 40% (40 marks)
Over the course of the semester each lecture begins with a true crime story. These
stories are designed to connect you to the core theoretical questions addressed in each
lecture, build empathy and curiosity by bridging the gap between studying crime and
lived experience.
You will choose a crime story that interests you and use ONE criminological theory to
help make sense of it. Your task is to tell this story in a compelling way, then
demonstrate how criminological theory can deepen our understanding of why this
crime occurred. Think of theory as a lens that reveals patterns, connections, and
explanations that might not be obvious from the surface details of the story.
Task Description:
Part A: Tell Your Crime Story (approx. 600-700 words)
Choose a real crime story, event, or incident that interests you. This could be:
• A high-profile case you've followed in the media
• A historical crime that fascinates you
• A local incident from your community
• A crime story from your family history (with appropriate sensitivity)
• An international case that caught your attention
Tell this story as a narrative that includes:
• The key people involved (offender, victims, key figures)
• The sequence of events leading up to, during, and after the crime
• The social, economic, and environmental context
• The aftermath and consequences
• What makes this story compelling or significant to you
Write this as an engaging story that would capture a reader's interest, not just a dry
recitation of facts.

Part B: Unpack Your Story Using Criminological Theory (approx 1000 words)
Choose ONE criminological theory from our course readings and lectures to analyse
your story. Your goal is to show how this theory helps us understand the crime in ways
that wouldn't be obvious from just hearing the story.
Your analysis should:
• Clearly explain your chosen theory and its key principles and how they work
together to explain the crime
• Apply the theory systematically to your story, showing how it illuminates different
aspects of the crime
• Demonstrate what the theory helps us see that we might have missed
• Acknowledge what the theory cannot explain or where it falls short
Part C: Positionality Statement (approximately 200 words)
Reflect on why you chose this particular story and how your background might influence
your analysis. Consider your relationship to the case and any potential biases or
insights this creates. See the information on Blackboard on how to write a positionality
statement.
Where to Use Research Literature:
You have several places for incorporating scholarly sources:
Support Your Theoretical Explanation
• Use scholarly sources to explain your chosen theory
• Show how scholars have used this theory to explain similar crimes
Provide Context for Your Story
• Use scholarly sources to provide background on the type of crime, location, or
social issues involved
• Use this research to contextualize your specific story within broader patterns
Suggested Structure:
1. Introduction (including why this story matters and a preview of your argument)
2. The Crime Story (your compelling narrative)
3. Theoretical Lens (explanation of your chosen theory)
4. Making Sense of the Story (applying theory to understand the crime)
5. Limitations and Reflections (what the theory can't explain, your positionality)
6. Conclusion (what we gain from this theoretical understanding)
7. References (APA 7th style)
8. AI Usage Statement
Important Considerations:
Ethical Guidelines:
• Treat all people in your story with dignity and respect
• Be sensitive to victims and their families
• If discussing people you know personally, protect their privacy
• Consider the ongoing impact of sharing this story
Source Requirements:
• A minimum of 6 scholarly, peer-reviewed references (see options above)
• Reliable sources about your chosen case (news reports, court documents,
official reports)
• Ensure you can access sufficient information about your case
Technical Requirements:
You may use AI to SUPPORT your writing, but you must include an AI usage
statement as an appendix. Failure to include this statement will result in a grade of
0. Tutorials will include a discussion of what appropriate AI usage looks like for this
assessment.
The reference list and AI statement are not included in the word count.
Why This Assignment Matters:
Crime stories surround us in media, conversations, and community experiences, but we
often accept surface-level explanations for why crimes occur. This assignment
develops your ability to look deeper—to use criminological theory as a tool for
understanding complex human behaviour and social problems. By choosing your own
story, you'll engage more meaningfully with both the human reality of crime and the
analytical power of criminological thinking. This skill of applying theoretical frameworks
to real-world problems is essential for anyone working in criminal justice, policy,
research, or community safety.

Grading Rubric: Must include AI Statement
40 points total Grade 7
(High Distinction)
Grade 6
(Distinction)
Grade 5
(Credit)
Grade 4
(Pass)
Grade 3
(Marginal Fail)
Grade 1-2 (Fail)
Crime Story
Narrative (10
points)
Compelling, well-structured
narrative with rich detail,
context, and clear significance.
Demonstrates original voice
and personal engagement with
the story.
Well-told story with good
detail and context. Shows
clear personal connection
and authentic voice.
Adequate storytelling
with sufficient detail.
Shows some personal
engagement with basic
narrative structure.
Basic story with some
detail but limited
personal engagement.
Simple narrative
approach.
Weak storytelling with
minimal detail. Little
evidence of personal
investment or authentic
voice.
Very poor or
incomplete story.
Generic or detached
approach with no
personal connection
Theoretical
Understanding &
Application
(10 points)
Exceptional grasp of theory with
sophisticated, original
application to the story. Shows
independent thinking about
how theory illuminates the
crime.
Strong understanding of
theory with thoughtful
application. Clear,
independent connections
between theory and story
elements.
Adequate theoretical
understanding with
competent application
to the story. Some
independent analysis
evident.
Basic theory explanation
with limited application.
Shows understanding
but minimal
independent thinking.
Weak theoretical
understanding with poor
application. Little
evidence of independent
analysis.
Poor or missing
theoretical
explanation. No
meaningful
independent
application to story.
Research
Integration
(5 points)
Outstanding synthesis of
scholarly sources with original
analysis. Sources seamlessly
woven into student's own
argument and insights.
Good integration of
research with clear
evidence of student's own
thinking. Sources support
rather than replace
analysis.
Adequate use of
sources with some
evidence of
independent synthesis
and analysis.
Basic use of research
with limited synthesis.
Student voice
sometimes unclear
among sources.
Minimal integration of
sources. Heavy reliance
on source material with
little independent
analysis.
Very limited use of
sources or over-
reliance on external
material. No evidence
of independent
synthesis.
Critical Analysis
& Limitations
(5 points)
Sophisticated, original analysis
of theory's strengths and
limitations. Demonstrates
independent critical thinking
throughout.
Good critical analysis
showing independent
evaluation of theoretical
limitations and
applications.
Adequate critical
thinking with some
independent
consideration of
limitations and
applications.
Basic analysis with
limited independent
critical reflection on
theory's strengths and
limitations.
Minimal critical analysis.
Little evidence of
independent evaluation
or reflection.
No independent
critical analysis. Over-
reliance on external
sources for
evaluation.
Positionality &
Reflection
(5 points)
Thoughtful, authentic reflection
demonstrating genuine self-
awareness and original insights
about personal connection to
story.
Good personal reflection
with authentic self-
awareness and clear
individual voice.
Adequate positionality
statement showing
some genuine self-
reflection and personal
insight.
Basic positionality with
limited authentic
reflection. Some
evidence of personal
thought.
Minimal personal
reflection. Little evidence
of genuine self-
awareness or individual
perspective.
Missing, generic, or
inauthentic
positionality
statement. No
evidence of personal
reflection.
Presentation &
Writing
(5 points)
Excellent individual writing
style, within word limit, perfect
referencing, outstanding
personal organization and
authentic voice throughout.
Good personal writing style
with minor errors, within
limit, mostly correct
referencing, clear individual
voice.
Adequate writing
showing individual style,
within limit, some
reference errors,
evidence of personal
voice.
Basic writing with some
individual elements,
close to limit, several
errors, limited personal
voice.
Poor writing quality with
little individual style,
outside word limit, many
errors, generic voice.
Very poor writing with
no individual style,
significantly
over/under limit,
major errors, heavily
generic.


学霸联盟