ASSESSMENT BRIEF: CRIM-305 Criminal Behavior

Course Code: CRIM-305 / PSY-340

Module Title: Theoretical Perspectives on Crime and Deviance

Term: Spring Semester 2026

Assessment Type: Case Study Analysis (Individual)

Weighting: 35% of Final Grade

Word Count: 1,800 words (+/- 10%)

Due Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026, by 11:59 PM (Campus Local Time)

Submission Platform: Canvas (Turnitin Integration)

---

1. Assignment Overview

You are required to analyze a fictional criminal case using two distinct criminological frameworks. The purpose of this task is to test your ability to explain why crime occurs by applying abstract theory to concrete human behavior. You must demonstrate how different theoretical lenses lead to different explanations and intervention strategies for the same set of facts.

2. The Case Study: “The Case of Marcus”

Marcus is a 19-year-old male recently arrested for a series of high-value electronics burglaries in a suburban neighborhood. He grew up in a neighborhood characterized by high unemployment and underfunded schools. His father was absent, and his mother worked two jobs to keep the family afloat.

In high school, Marcus struggled academically but excelled in athletics. He hoped to secure a college scholarship, but a severe knee injury in his junior year ended his sports career. Following this injury, his grades plummeted, and he began cutting class. During this time, he started spending time with an older cousin, unrelated to his household, who was known in the community for driving expensive cars and wearing designer clothes despite having no formal employment.

Marcus initially expressed hesitation about his cousin’s activities. However, after his mother lost one of her jobs, the financial pressure on the household increased. His cousin told him, “The system is rigged against us anyway; you take what you need.” Marcus eventually agreed to drive the getaway car for a burglary, which escalated to him actively participating in break-ins. In his police interview, Marcus stated he “had no other choice” to help his mother and that “insurance pays for it all anyway.”

3. Task Instructions

Prepare a 1,800-word analysis of the case provided above. Your paper must include the following four sections:

Part A: Application of General Strain Theory (approx. 500 words)

Utilize Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory (GST) to explain Marcus’s behavior.

• Identify the specific sources of strain Marcus experienced.

• Analyze how the loss of positive stimuli (the injury) and the presentation of negative stimuli (financial crisis) contributed to his negative affective state.

• Explain why Marcus chose criminal coping mechanisms over legitimate ones.

Part B: Application of Social Learning Theory (approx. 500 words)

Utilize Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory (or Sutherland’s Differential Association) to explain the same behavior.

• Examine the role of differential association with his cousin.

• Identify the specific definitions favorable to crime that Marcus internalized (e.g., neutralizing guilt).

• Discuss the role of differential reinforcement (financial reward vs. moral hesitation) in his decision-making process.

Part C: Theoretical Comparison and Critique (approx. 500 words)

Compare the two theories regarding their explanatory power for this specific case.

• Which theory better accounts for the onset of Marcus’s criminal behavior?

• Identify one limitation of each theory when applied to these facts. For example, does Strain Theory explain why he chose burglary specifically? Does Social Learning Theory account for his initial hesitation?

Part D: Intervention Strategy (approx. 300 words)

Propose one evidence-based intervention strategy based on one of the theories you discussed.

• If you choose Strain Theory, focus on coping skills or structural support.

• If you choose Social Learning Theory, focus on cognitive-behavioral restructuring or altering associations.

4. Formatting and Academic Expectations

• Format: APA 7th Edition is required for all citations and the reference list.

• Structure: Use standard essay structure with an introduction, clear section headings, and a conclusion.

• Sources: Cite a minimum of 6 scholarly sources. At least 4 must be peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2018 and 2026.

• Voice: Maintain an objective, analytical tone. Avoid colloquialisms and emotive language.

5. Grading Rubric (Marking Criteria)

Criteria	High Distinction / A (80-100%)	Distinction / B (70-79%)	Credit / C (60-69%)	Pass / D (50-59%)	Fail / F (<50%)
Theoretical Depth (30%)	Demonstrates sophisticated command of Agnew and Akers. Concepts like ‘negative affect’ and ‘neutralization’ are defined precisely and used correctly.	Shows solid understanding of both theories. Key concepts are defined and generally accurate.	Demonstrates basic understanding. Definitions are present but may lack nuance or detail.	Shows limited understanding. Theories are confused or key concepts are missing.	Theories are absent or fundamentally misunderstood.
Application to Case (30%)	Seamlessly integrates case facts with theoretical concepts. Every claim about Marcus is supported by evidence from the vignette.	Links theory to the case effectively. Most claims are supported by case details.	Connects theory to the case but relies on generalities. Some links between facts and theory are weak.	Discusses theory and the case separately. Fails to integrate the two.	No attempt made to link theory to the case.
Critical Comparison (20%)	Offers a compelling argument for the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. Identifies gaps in explanatory power.	Compares the theories clearly. Identifies one strength and one weakness for each.	Describes the theories side-by-side but fails to critically compare them.	Lists features of theories without comparison.	No comparison section included.
Writing & APA (20%)	Writing is flawless, concise, and professional. APA formatting is perfect.	Writing is clear and logical. Minor APA errors do not impede reading.	Writing is readable but may be repetitive. Frequent APA errors.	Writing is difficult to follow. Major formatting errors.	Writing is incoherent. Plagiarism detected.

---

6.

Agnew’s General Strain Theory posits that crime results from the inability to achieve positively valued goals. In the case of Marcus, the primary source of strain is the disjunction between his goal of athletic success and the reality of his injury. The removal of this positive stimulus likely generated a negative affective state, specifically frustration and hopelessness. Unlike Merton’s structural strain, Agnew emphasizes the emotional reaction to these stressors. Marcus lacked legitimate coping mechanisms to process this anger; consequently, he turned to criminal coping methods to alleviate the financial strain on his mother, viewing burglary as a corrective action to restore equity to his household.

7. Recommended Learning Resources

The following peer-reviewed sources are appropriate for this assignment. Note the use of current literature to support theoretical claims.

1. Agnew, R. (2020). Etiology of crime: General strain theory. In H. N. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.238

2. Brezina, T. (2019). General strain theory. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. P. Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on Crime and Deviance (2nd ed., pp. 239–256). Springer.

3. Clement, S., & O’Sullivan, J. (2025). Peer influence and digital drift: Updating social learning theory for the 21st century. Journal of Criminal Justice, 72, 101-115.

4. McGee, T. R., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Developmental and life-course theories of crime. In The Handbook of Criminological Theory (pp. 336-354). Wiley-Blackwell.

5. Piquero, A. R. (2022). The handbook of criminological theory. Wiley-Blackwell.