O Level Sociology: Patterns of Crime and How Societies Deal With It — Practice Questions (Cambridge 2251)

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Patterns of crime and how societies deal with it revision notes

These questions practise key questions 6.2 and 6.3 of Cambridge O Level Sociology (2251). Set A covers patterns and explanations; Set B covers punishment and policing. Both follow the six-part (a)–(f) structure the syllabus describes for each Paper 2 question.

---

Set A — Patterns and explanations (6.2)

(a) Define the terms:

• (i) chivalry thesis [2]
• (ii) relative deprivation [2]

(b) Give two examples of crimes of the powerful. [2]

(c) Explain three reasons why some ethnic minority groups may be over-represented in crime statistics. [6]

(d) Explain three ways the culture of masculinity may lead to crime. [6]

(e) Discuss the labelling explanation of crime and deviance. [8]

(f) Evaluate the view that strain theory is the best explanation of crime. [14]

Set B — Dealing with crime (6.3)

(a) Define the terms:

• (i) retribution [2]
• (ii) incapacitation [2]

(b) Give two examples of non-custodial sentences. [2]

(c) Explain three reasons why prison may fail to reduce crime. [6]

(d) Explain three strengths of community policing. [6]

(e) Discuss the effectiveness of digital surveillance in preventing crime. [8]

(f) Evaluate the view that rehabilitation is the most effective aim of punishment. [14]

---

Answers — Set A

(a)(i) [2] The idea that police, courts and other agencies treat female offenders more leniently than men, so women’s crime is under-recorded (Pollak, 1950) (2).

(a)(ii) [2] Feeling deprived in comparison with others, such as people in the same society or those shown in the media, even if not in absolute poverty (2) (Lea and Young, 1984).

(b) [2] Any two: tax evasion by corporations; breaking health and safety laws; price fixing; environmental pollution by companies; bribery or corruption by officials; state crimes.

(c) [6] Three reasons, 2 marks each: institutional racism in policing; police targeting and stop and search in minority areas; material and relative deprivation; stereotyping by police, courts and media (Gilroy, 1982); marginalisation and lack of opportunity; status frustration.

(d) [6] Three ways, 2 marks each: violence used to prove toughness and gain respect; risk-taking and excitement valued (Miller’s focal concerns, 1958); gang membership as a source of masculine status; pressure to be a provider may lead to property crime when legitimate work is unavailable; misogyny linked to violence against women.

(e) [8] Levels: 7–8 clear, developed, with evaluation; 4–6 some development; 1–3 basic.

• Becker (1963): an act becomes deviant only when labelled so.
• Agents of control have the power to apply labels, often to less powerful groups.
• The label becomes a master status; the person may accept it, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy and deviant career.
• Moral panics (Stanley Cohen, 1972) show labelling on a wider scale.
• Evaluation: explains why some groups are criminalised and how reactions amplify deviance; but does not explain the first deviant act, can be deterministic and may neglect victims.

(f) [14] Levels: 11–14 balanced, developed, evaluated with conclusion; 7–10 developed but less balanced; 4–6 limited; 1–3 basic.

Strain theory’s strengths:

• Merton (1938): society stresses success but blocks legitimate means for some, leading to innovation — explains working-class property crime.
• Links crime to social structure, not individual wickedness.
• Developed by subcultural theory (A. Cohen, 1955).

Weaknesses and alternatives:

• Does not explain non-utilitarian crime such as vandalism or violence for thrills (Katz, 1988).
• Ignores crimes of the powerful (Box, 1983) — Marxists explain these better.
• Assumes everyone shares the same goals.
• Labelling theory explains how reactions shape statistics.
• Feminism explains gender differences that strain theory ignores.

Conclusion: strain theory explains some patterns well but is not the best single explanation.

Answers — Set B

(a)(i) [2] Punishment as deserved payback, so that the offender suffers in proportion to the harm caused (2).

(a)(ii) [2] Removing an offender’s ability to commit further crime, for example by imprisonment (2).

(b) [2] Any two: electronic tagging; curfews; restraining orders; probation; community service; fines; police cautions.

(c) [6] Three reasons, 2 marks each: prisoners learn criminal skills and contacts; prison labels people, making it harder to find work after release; many prisons lack rehabilitation programmes; family ties are broken; overcrowding and violence; deterrence is weak if offenders do not expect to be caught.

(d) [6] Three strengths, 2 marks each: builds trust so that people report crime; local knowledge helps prevent crime; officers can work with schools and youth groups; reduces tension compared with military-style policing; improves the legitimacy of the police.

(e) [8] Levels as for A(e).

• Effective: CCTV, phone data and facial recognition aid detection and deterrence; online monitoring detects cyber crime; evidence for prosecutions.
• Limitations: crime may move elsewhere (displacement); offenders hide faces or use encryption; privacy concerns and risk of misuse by the state; surveillance may target some groups more than others; expensive.

(f) [14]

• For rehabilitation: addresses causes of offending such as addiction or lack of skills; can lower reoffending (Norway’s rehabilitative prisons such as Halden, opened 2010); cheaper in the long run; respects human rights.
• Against / alternatives: public and victims may want retribution; incapacitation protects the public from dangerous offenders; deterrence may prevent crime by others; rehabilitation programmes need resources and willing offenders.
• Conclusion: the most effective aim depends on the offence and offender; many systems combine aims.

---

Frequently asked questions

Can I use examples from different countries? Yes — the syllabus key question asks how crime is dealt with “in different societies”, so comparison is credited.

How should I structure (f)? A short introduction, arguments for, arguments against or alternatives, and a conclusion that answers the question.

Do I need to name theorists? Accurate names such as Merton, Becker and Box strengthen answers, but clear explanation matters most.

Related pages: O Level patterns of crime and how societies deal with it guide | O Level family, education and crime practice questions