Application Paper

• Due Apr 5 by 11:59 pm Points 100 Submitting a file upload

Assignment Overview:

For this assignment, you will need to apply your knowledge of 3 criminological theories to a contemporary crime. [Please limit your selection to crimes that have taken place during the last 10 years. Please do NOT write your paper on Erik or Lyle Menendez, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ruby Franke, Alex Murdaugh, or Gabby Petito].

Application papers should be 10 pages in length and should include the following:

1. A brief description of the crime you have selected [~1 page]

• What type of crime will you be examining?
• What do we know about the circumstances surrounding the crime?
• What do we know about the perpetrator?
• What do we know about the target or victim?

1. A detailed description of how each theory (or theorist) would explain the crime [2-3 pages per theory]

• What does the theory/theorist suggest is the cause of crime? What additional factors (if any) does it consider? [Be sure to name & define the key concepts of each theory in your explanation. Never assume that we will know what you mean]
• Which components of the theory are clearly evident in the case? [Note: This should be the focus of your paper. Please draw upon specific text, quotes, or illustrative scenes to demonstrate each point]
• Which components of the theory (if any) are missing from the case?

1. A comparison of the three theories [~2 pages]

• Which theory does the best job at explaining the crime? [You MUST pick one – no ties here]
• Which aspects of the crime or criminal does each theory do a good job of accounting for?
• Which aspects of the crime or criminal does each theory fail to account for?

1. In-text citations and a reference section (using APA or ASA style guidelines) for all sources used to complete this assignment [~1 page]

Papers should use 12pt font and grammatically correct, complete sentences.

Selecting the Theories:

When selecting which theories to write about, you should choose from the following:

• Cohen & Felson’s Routine Activities Theory
• Durkheims Theory of Modernization & Anomie
• Sampsons Theory of Collective Efficacy
• Aker’s Differential Reinforcement Theory
• Athens Theory of Violentization
• Agnews General Strain Theory
• Hirschis Social Control Theory
• Gottfredson and Hirschis General Theory of Crime
• Lemert’s Labeling Theory

Please note: The theories you select do not all need to “fit” the crime. It is okay (perhaps even expected) that at least one theory will not work. What I will be looking for is whether you can explain why it does not fit.

Rubric

Application Paper (2026)

Application Paper (2026)

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Description of the Crime

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper clearly identifies all relevant details requested in the assignment prompt.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides some requested details but is missing others. The description of the crime is rambling/unclear or too short/vague.

3 to >1.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper is missing most relevant details and/or fails to adhere to the requirements put forth in the assignment prompt.

1 to >0 pts

No Marks (F)

The paper is missing an explanation of the crime.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Application of Theory #1

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Application of Theory #2

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Application of Theory #3

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper provides a clear, in-depth description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers specific, concrete evidence from the artifact to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime, and it acknowledges whether there are any elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or underdeveloped description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Some points were supported with relevant facts/examples while others lacked any support. And, it only partially acknowledges the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers limited evidence (if any) to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime. Major points were not supported with relevant facts/examples. And, the paper clearly fails to acknowledge the elements of the theory that cannot be explained by and/or are contradicted by details of the crime.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper provides a simplistic and/or inaccurate description of how the theory would explain the crime. It offers no evidence to demonstrate whether the theory offers a strong (or weak) explanation of the crime and/or the application is inaccurate or inappropriate.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Discussion of Strengths & Weaknesses

20 to >18.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper clearly indicates which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime. And, the author’s position is justified by demonstrating how the strengths and weaknesses of said theory outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of the other two theories.

18 to >14.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper indicates which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and the author’s position is (for the most part) justified by demonstrating how the strengths and weaknesses of said theory outweigh the strengths and weaknesses of the other two theories. Some points may be weak or unclear.

14 to >11.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper fails to indicate which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and/or the author’s justification is weak or incomplete.

11 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper fails to indicate which of the three theories the author believes provides the best explanation of the crime, and/or the author’s justification is lacking in that it fails to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all three theories (if any).

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

References/Citations

10 to >8.0 pts

Excellent (A)

Paper includes 3+ academic, peer-reviewed references. All sources are reputable and cited using correct formatting (i.e., using APA or ASA citation guidelines)

8 to >7.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

Paper only includes 1-2 academic, peer-reviewed references, and/or citations are incorrect or incomplete.

7 to >5.0 pts

Poor (D)

Paper includes no academic, peer-reviewed references. Other sources are unreliable or missing or improperly referenced.

5 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

Paper includes no references OR references are unreliable, missing, or improperly referenced.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Execution/Quality of Writing

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent (A)

The paper is well-organized, and all statements and responses are appropriate in language, well structured, and grammatically correct. The paper clearly adheres to all guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt.

4 to >3.0 pts

Good (B)/Developing (C)

The paper is somewhat organized, and most statements are well structured and grammatically correct. However, there are some spelling/grammatical errors throughout the paper. The paper adheres to most of the guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt, but it could use additional editing/tightening.

3 to >1.0 pts

Poor (D)

The paper is poorly organized, and there are numerous spelling/grammatical errors. The author’s writing is confusing/hard to follow, and the paper fails to adhere to the guidelines outlined in the assignment prompt.

1 to >0 pts

Unacceptable (F)

The paper was written in part or in full by another person or with generative AI.

5 pts

Total Points: 100