Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to episode two of Crime and Deviants
Speaker 1: for the Sociology Show podcast. In this episode, we are
Speaker 1: going to look at how crime is measured in the UK.
Speaker 1: The first thing for you to remember is that there
Speaker 1: are three different ways in which crime is measured in
Speaker 1: the UK. We have official crime statistics, victim surveys, and
Speaker 1: self report studies. So official crime statistics or the OCS
Speaker 1: includes police records and the Crime Survey of England and
Speaker 1: Wales or the CSEW. We then have victim surveys and
Speaker 1: this includes the Crime Survey for England and Wales and
Speaker 1: localized victim surveys. And victim surveys are where a person
Speaker 1: indicates all the crimes that may have been committed against
Speaker 1: themselves during the last year. We then also have self
Speaker 1: report studies, which again are a survey conducted in which
Speaker 1: the person indicates or admits any crimes that they have
Speaker 1: committed over the course of the last year. These, of
Speaker 1: course are anonymous. So firstly, let's just think about official
Speaker 1: crime statistics in general. Remember, for some sociologists positivists in particular,
Speaker 1: they see a real benefit of official crime statistics because
Speaker 1: they tend to be large scale macro often largely generalizable
Speaker 1: and representative, as they cover a large number of people. However,
Speaker 1: for many sociologists, in particular interpretivist sociologists, they see a
Speaker 1: real weakness to official crime statistics. They say that statistics
Speaker 1: can lack depth, they can lack detail, they do not
Speaker 1: give validity or insight or the shtayan, and so there
Speaker 1: are many criticisms or problems of overall crime statistics. It's
Speaker 1: also worth mentioning, of course, that crime statistics only really
Speaker 1: show us a small fraction of the actual crime that's
Speaker 1: going on. It's estimated that crime stats actually only show
Speaker 1: about ten percent of all crime. The rest of crime
Speaker 1: is what is known as the dark figure of crime.
Speaker 1: Or perhaps a better analogy is the iceberg theory. You
Speaker 1: imagine an iceberg. Only the tip of the iceberg tips
Speaker 1: out of the water. The rest is hidden underneath. So
Speaker 1: just try and remember that statistic that actually we probably
Speaker 1: only see a small percentage around ten percent of real crime.
Speaker 1: It could even be lower than that. So let's start
Speaker 1: with official crime statistics. Official crime statistics refer to any
Speaker 1: data produced or collated by the government. They are collated
Speaker 1: by the Home Office and published by the Office for
Speaker 1: national statistics. They include both or either police statistics and
Speaker 1: court and prison records and the Crime Survey for England
Speaker 1: and Wales. These crime statistics are published every six months.
Speaker 1: So what are the advantages of the official crime statistics. Well,
Speaker 1: your two groups, functionists and right realists really really do
Speaker 1: like the use of crime statistics. They uncritically accept the
Speaker 1: official crime statistics as a fair reflection of the problem
Speaker 1: of crime. They argue that police statistics are useful because
Speaker 1: they are widely geographically representative. Since they are supplied by
Speaker 1: forty five territorial police forces plus the British Transport Police.
Speaker 1: Most members of the public know the number nine ninety
Speaker 1: nine and can therefore report crimes either in person or
Speaker 1: over the phone. This means that the sample reported to
Speaker 1: the police should theoretically include all ages, classes, genders, ethnicities
Speaker 1: and so on, so that the statistics produce reflect a
Speaker 1: huge data set and therefore can be used to generalize
Speaker 1: across the UK. Functions and right realists also say that
Speaker 1: the reliability should be high, and reliability may be high
Speaker 1: for the police statistics because they are standardized thanks to
Speaker 1: high levels of training for police officers to make sure
Speaker 1: that crimes are recorded in the same way by all officers,
Speaker 1: ensuring consistency. They also operationalize carefully. Each police force should
Speaker 1: have the same understanding of key concepts around enforcing the law,
Speaker 1: ensuring reliability e g. What constitute and assault, aggravated assault
Speaker 1: or manslaughter, etc. The statistics are also gathered every year
Speaker 1: and in the same way and again. This increases the
Speaker 1: reliability as they are collected again and again to see
Speaker 1: emerging trends and patterns over time. Functions, of course, believe
Speaker 1: in the idea of consensus, so they see the polics
Speaker 1: representing all of us and do not question their motives.
Speaker 1: They therefore assume that what is reported and recorded is
Speaker 1: what they call a social fact, and so the figures
Speaker 1: reflect reality, meaning, according to functionists, there is high validity
Speaker 1: in these statistics. Functionists trust the police figures. They reject
Speaker 1: the suggestion that they are socially constructed. We know that
Speaker 1: some crimes are highly likely to be reported. For example,
Speaker 1: if victims see some benefit to themselves, such as an
Speaker 1: insurance claim or a stolen car, they are going to
Speaker 1: report it. So the statistics for some crimes are likely
Speaker 1: to be higher in validity than others. Practically, police statistics
Speaker 1: are also easy to access and they've already been compiled.
Speaker 1: Remember they are secondary data for a sociologist. The data
Speaker 1: is published and up to date, and so can be
Speaker 1: accessed by any member of the public via the Internet.
Speaker 1: According to these groups functioning some right realists, there are
Speaker 1: also few ethical worries as offenders and victims are not
Speaker 1: named and they remain anonymous. However, there are many disadvantages
Speaker 1: to police statistics. Interactions are highly critical of police statistics
Speaker 1: because they believe that they reflect only a narrow version
Speaker 1: of reality, not the whole truth. They are incomplete because
Speaker 1: not all crimes are reported or recorded, and only certain
Speaker 1: people seem to get labeled as criminal. Therefore, interactionists suggest
Speaker 1: that police statistics lack validity because they do not reveal
Speaker 1: the dark figure of crime, or, as mentioned earlier, it
Speaker 1: does not account for the Iceberg theory. Siicarell found that
Speaker 1: police officers in his study were more likely to arrest
Speaker 1: and charge working class youth the middle class youths, even
Speaker 1: though they carried out the same amount of crime. Thus,
Speaker 1: police statistics may have low validity because they reflect the
Speaker 1: labeling process rather than the actual crimes that are being
Speaker 1: carried out There are lots of instances where crimes go
Speaker 1: undetected and unreported, and this challenges the police statistics because
Speaker 1: many more crimes may exist, but they do not actually
Speaker 1: appear in the statistics in terms of what we're seeing
Speaker 1: as the general public. The main reasons for this is
Speaker 1: because they've not been reported, they've not been recorded, or
Speaker 1: they've gone unpunished. So why might this happen? Where There
Speaker 1: are a variety of reasons as to why this may occur. Firstly,
Speaker 1: the victim may be unaware that a crime is being committed,
Speaker 1: such as if they were a victim of a financial fraud.
Speaker 1: People may not report crimes because they were some way involved.
Speaker 1: Imagine if a person were a drug dealer themselves and
Speaker 1: their stash was stolen from them, are they really going
Speaker 1: to go to the police. Likewise, they may fear retaliation,
Speaker 1: particularly if they were a victim against a very dangerous
Speaker 1: individual or gang. It may be that the crimes perceived
Speaker 1: as too trivial or too small. Let's imagine that you
Speaker 1: had an old, rusty bike tied up outside your house
Speaker 1: and someone stole it. Perhaps you couldn't be bothered to
Speaker 1: let the police know because it's seen as far too
Speaker 1: insignificant disadvantage. Communities are also less likely to have faith
Speaker 1: in the police and therefore are much less likely to
Speaker 1: report crimes, which arguably compacts the problem. Some groups just
Speaker 1: simply don't want to have any connection or relation with
Speaker 1: the police at all. Some people may also not report
Speaker 1: certain crimes, such as sexual offenses and domestic violence, because
Speaker 1: they're too embarrassed or they just simply don't want to
Speaker 1: report it. We know that those two offenses in particular
Speaker 1: are massively underreported. And finally, maybe the person who's a
Speaker 1: victim may lack power. For example, a young child may
Speaker 1: be neglected or abused, but doesn't understand that they've had
Speaker 1: a crime committed against them, or may not have the
Speaker 1: ability to be able to report it to the police
Speaker 1: in the first place. One might assume that if a
Speaker 1: crime is reported to the police that they would obviously
Speaker 1: record every instance of this, but this isn't always the case.
Speaker 1: The police are trained to be professional and use a
Speaker 1: discretion when appropriate. This means that officers may decide that
Speaker 1: a crime is too trivial and thus not record it
Speaker 1: as a crime. In twenty twenty, the hm Inspectra of
Speaker 1: Constabulary reported that in the Greater Manchester Police Force alone,
Speaker 1: around two hundred and twenty crimes a day when unrecorded.
Speaker 1: In the twelve month period reviewed by inspectors, it was
Speaker 1: estimated the force of recorded only seventy seven point seven
Speaker 1: percent of reported crimes. This shows that police recorded practices
Speaker 1: can impact on the validity of crime statistics. In other words,
Speaker 1: they don't show a true picture, but also the reliability
Speaker 1: of the statistics because they're not being recorded in the
Speaker 1: same way each time. Simply, the recording of crime may
Speaker 1: also be different in different localities, for exact example, between
Speaker 1: the inner city areas and urban areas. Marxists reject police statistics.
Speaker 1: The sociologist Gordon, for example, suggests that the bourgeoisie selectively
Speaker 1: enforce the law against the less powerful groups. Gordon argues
Speaker 1: that police officers are the strong arm of the bourgeoisie
Speaker 1: and so operate in ways which reflect the interests of
Speaker 1: the ruling class. As such, the police may choose to
Speaker 1: pursue people and groups they perceive to be a threat
Speaker 1: to society and not others. Gordon suggests that the police
Speaker 1: are selective in the way in which they apply the law,
Speaker 1: choosing challenging members of the working class to prosecute and
Speaker 1: imprison to uphold the illusion of a perfect capitalist system.
Speaker 1: The research of Waddington also conductive research on what he
Speaker 1: calls canteen culture. His research on canteen culture of the
Speaker 1: police also suggests that the police statistics are not to
Speaker 1: be trusted because they reflect the police stereotypes of who
Speaker 1: they believe to be typical criminals, which influence them to
Speaker 1: stop and search groups. This includes ethnic minorities, youths, men
Speaker 1: rather than women in the working class. This may also
Speaker 1: lead to a self fulfilling prophecy where the only people
Speaker 1: found to be committing these crimes are the groups who
Speaker 1: are stopped and searched in the first place. Many criticize
Speaker 1: statistics therefore for lacking in validity because they fail to
Speaker 1: understand in any depth why something is happening or why
Speaker 1: a crime is being committed. Statistics are quantitative, and as
Speaker 1: a result, they may indicate that something is the case,
Speaker 1: but not the reasons why. Remember that feminists also prefer
Speaker 1: to use methods which focus much more on the victim,
Speaker 1: offering a much more empathetic and qualitative approach. Although official
Speaker 1: crime statistics are formed mostly by figures from the police
Speaker 1: and courts. The government does supplement this with extra information
Speaker 1: an annual survey called the Crime Survey of England and Wales.
Speaker 1: Victim surveys are studies about the victims of crime, rather
Speaker 1: than offenders. Interviewers ask people if they have been a
Speaker 1: victim of crime in the last year and whether they
Speaker 1: reported it to the police. Respondents are asked questions in
Speaker 1: their own homes by trained interviewers using a structured interview,
Speaker 1: with some questions administered on a laptop. Victim surveys reveal
Speaker 1: the dark figure of crime and the reasons why people
Speaker 1: may not have reported the crime committed against them to
Speaker 1: the police in the first place. Positivists argue that the
Speaker 1: Crime Survey for England and Wales is high in representativeness
Speaker 1: because it uses a nationally representative sample a stratified random
Speaker 1: sampling technique of thirty five thousand adults and three thousand
Speaker 1: children aged between ten and fifteen with parental consent per year.
Speaker 1: The response rate, though, has fallen from around seventy percent
Speaker 1: pre pandemic to around forty two percent in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: The information is collected by professional, trained interviewers and the
Speaker 1: interview is structured so that there is high reliability because
Speaker 1: the key terms are off operationalized clearly. Each interview we'll
Speaker 1: use the same questions phrased in the same way, and
Speaker 1: answers are coded. It can also be argued that this
Speaker 1: survey does produce some high validity because respondents are asked
Speaker 1: questions in their own home where they feel more comfortable.
Speaker 1: The Crime Survey for England and Wales has been successful
Speaker 1: at developing special measures to estimate the extent of domestic violence, stalking,
Speaker 1: and sexual victimization, which are least likely to be reported
Speaker 1: crimes to the police. For these questions, the laptop is
Speaker 1: given to the respondent and they are asked to complete
Speaker 1: in privacy to avoid embarrassment and thus raise validity. There
Speaker 1: are many disadvantages, however, of the Crime Survey of England
Speaker 1: and Wales, such as it very very rarely reflects white
Speaker 1: collar crimes, that's crimes committed by the middle and upper classes.
Speaker 1: Those with power. Marks Is such as Snyder, argue that
Speaker 1: by continually asking about issues such as street crime rather
Speaker 1: than white collar crimes, we reinforce the narrative that crime
Speaker 1: is a working class issue. People may not be aware
Speaker 1: they are victims of crimes, and the crime Survey for
Speaker 1: England and Wales relies on victims to have objective knowledge
Speaker 1: of the crimes committed against them. People's memories of traumatic
Speaker 1: events are often not that accurate, or they may fail
Speaker 1: to remember all of the crimes they've actually experienced over
Speaker 1: the previous twelve months. As with police statistics, people may
Speaker 1: be embarrassed or fear reprisals, and so that data is
Speaker 1: not entirely valid. In addition, victim surveys don't reveal victimless
Speaker 1: crimes such as underage drinking. The response rate, as already noted,
Speaker 1: is forty two percent, not one hundred percent, so some
Speaker 1: data has not been captured. Where's all that missing data gone?
Speaker 1: This means that representativeness may be lowered if not every
Speaker 1: person completes the survey. If those that don't respond are
Speaker 1: the people who have suffered any crimes, this distorts our
Speaker 1: view since we may not be able to generalize what's
Speaker 1: actually occurring with data in relation to crime. Therefore, we
Speaker 1: do have real problems with potential validity, representativeness, and generalizability
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Crime Survey of England and Wales.
Speaker 1: Now let's be a little bit more specific to victim surveys.
Speaker 1: Some victim surveys can help uncover the wider impact of
Speaker 1: crime on a community. Left realists are particularly keen to
Speaker 1: focus on working class victims and to provide solutions to
Speaker 1: cope with the crime. Jones carried out the Islington Crime Survey.
Speaker 1: This survey not only focuses on a specific geographical area
Speaker 1: that in his city, but also on the impact of
Speaker 1: crime on individuals, lives, and particularly vulnerable groups. The studies
Speaker 1: showed that a third of all households have been touched
Speaker 1: by serious crime in the last twelve months. Crime has
Speaker 1: rated a major problem behind unemployment. The qualitative element of
Speaker 1: the survey unveiled that crime really altered people's lives. Twenty
Speaker 1: five percent of all people avoided going out after dark
Speaker 1: because of a fear of crime. Twenty eight percent said
Speaker 1: that they felt unsafe in their own homes. More than
Speaker 1: half of women stated that the fear of crime is
Speaker 1: real and rational, and that it is not an exaggeration
Speaker 1: to conclude that many women in inner city urban areas
Speaker 1: live in a state of virtual curfew. These findings and
Speaker 1: victimization were influential in developing the theory of left realism.
Speaker 1: They led left realists to believe that crime and fear
Speaker 1: of crime, especially in inner city areas, is very important
Speaker 1: in shaping people's lives, and the official crime statistics alone
Speaker 1: doesn't truly reflect this fact and so needs to be
Speaker 1: supplemented by victim surveys. The Islington Crime Survey also found
Speaker 1: that not everyone has the same likelihood of becoming a victim,
Speaker 1: since young household's, lone parents, and the unemployed were more
Speaker 1: than twice as likely to be a victim of crime
Speaker 1: as the average person. The poor were also more likely
Speaker 1: to be subject to multiple Victimization surveys can also be
Speaker 1: useful in testing the success of social policy initiatives. For example,
Speaker 1: Farrington and Painter use a victim survey to test where
Speaker 1: their improved street lighting reduce crime rates. They sent victimization
Speaker 1: surveys to household a thousand in total before and after
Speaker 1: the new street lighting was installed. Respondents reported that they
Speaker 1: felt safer and this led to safer spaces because potential
Speaker 1: criminals feared being spotted. Victimization fell by forty three percent.
Speaker 1: Farrington and Painter point out that the importance of using
Speaker 1: a victimization survey helps reveal crimes such as receiving drugs,
Speaker 1: which the police may not be aware of. This study
Speaker 1: shows the importance of using victim surveys rather than police
Speaker 1: statistics to reveal crime and fear of crime from a
Speaker 1: personal perspective. Feminists also favor victim surveys because they believe
Speaker 1: criminology should start with the victim, not the perpetrator. Feminists
Speaker 1: seek empathetic, in depth, qualitative data which reveals what it
Speaker 1: feels like to be a victim. For example, do Bash
Speaker 1: and Dobash used two female researchers to carry out one
Speaker 1: hundred and nine structured interviews with women who had experienced
Speaker 1: domestic violence. Forty two of the women were living or
Speaker 1: had been living in a women's refuge. Dobash and Dobash
Speaker 1: found that twenty three percent of their sample actually experienced
Speaker 1: violence before their marriage, but believed it would cease once
Speaker 1: they were married. The other seventy seven percent had not
Speaker 1: experienced before marriage, but did experience it once they were married.
Speaker 1: The first violent episode usually consisted of a single blow
Speaker 1: with little physical injury. It was often preceded by an argument,
Speaker 1: usually about the husband's possessiveness and his ideas about his
Speaker 1: wise responsibility to him. This episode was normally followed by shock, shame,
Speaker 1: and guilt from both parties. The husband begged for forgiveness
Speaker 1: and promised it would not happen again, whilst wives often
Speaker 1: attempted to understand the action in terms of her own behavior,
Speaker 1: the idea that perhaps she brought it upon herself. Few
Speaker 1: females responded to the attack with physical force themselfs do
Speaker 1: Bash and Dobash found that such violence became routine and normal.
Speaker 1: They found that men felt they had the right to
Speaker 1: punish or discipline their wives for being bad wives or mothers.
Speaker 1: Women too, expected domestic violence to be a normal part
Speaker 1: of their marriage and consequently rarely complained about it or
Speaker 1: sought medical attention. They left the relationship when children were
Speaker 1: threatened with violence, too feministy in depth data is much
Speaker 1: more valuable than statistics because it allows us to see
Speaker 1: how crime impacts on individuals and crime, and therefore gives
Speaker 1: us better validity. There are, of course, many problems with
Speaker 1: smaller scale victim surveys and studies. Many victim surveys often
Speaker 1: use small samples, which of course reduces the generalizability. For example,
Speaker 1: in that dobashan day Obash study. They used a sample
Speaker 1: of women who were living in domestic violence hostels, and
Speaker 1: therefore they were not probably representative of women who may
Speaker 1: experience low levels of domestic violence, may not experience any
Speaker 1: domestic violence, or to the men who experienced domestic violence. Finally,
Speaker 1: let's move on to self report studies. Remember this is
Speaker 1: an anonymous questionnaire, self completed, and it is where the
Speaker 1: person completing it admits to crimes that they've committed over
Speaker 1: a twelve year period. As well as being asked how
Speaker 1: often they commit illegal acts. Respondents are generally asked details
Speaker 1: of their background, such as age, gender, or ethnicity. One
Speaker 1: of the advantages of self report studies is that they
Speaker 1: provide evidence against the typical delinquent, as shown in the
Speaker 1: crime rate Graham and Bowling conducting the self report study
Speaker 1: of twenty four hundred people aged fourteen to twenty five.
Speaker 1: They were interviewed in their own homes face to face,
Speaker 1: then completed as self completion questionnaire which used twenty three offenses,
Speaker 1: and are asked them to admit which, if any, they
Speaker 1: had committed. Crime rates for blacks and whites were almost
Speaker 1: equal forty four percent for whites and forty three percent
Speaker 1: for blacks, only thirty for British Asians, and so this
Speaker 1: self report study was helpful in providing a more valid
Speaker 1: account of patterns of offending regarding ethnicity and perhaps reinforces
Speaker 1: the need for sociologists to be suspicious of the possibility
Speaker 1: of police racism. Self report studies are useful as they
Speaker 1: can reveal hidden aspects of crime not picked up in
Speaker 1: the statistics, and this raises the validity in terms of gender.
Speaker 1: For example, Anne Campbell found that levels of crime and
Speaker 1: deviants admitted to by females and males were much closer
Speaker 1: than police recorded figures tended to suggest. The official crime
Speaker 1: statistics show that for every one crime committed by women,
Speaker 1: men commit five, so the ratio is one to five.
Speaker 1: This shows that men are much more criminal than women. However,
Speaker 1: Campbell carried out small scale self report studies with their
Speaker 1: A level classes and found that for ever every one
Speaker 1: crime that women committed, men committed one point five, So
Speaker 1: the difference between crime rate of men and women is
Speaker 1: much closer than the official crime statistics suggests one to
Speaker 1: one point five. This backs up the idea of Pollock's
Speaker 1: chivalry theory. Perhaps females are committing crime, but they are
Speaker 1: much less likely to be targeted, punished and reported. Self
Speaker 1: report studies may also be useful to see trends over
Speaker 1: time and track changes that Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions
Speaker 1: and Crime is one of the largest prospective longitudinal studies
Speaker 1: of youth offending ever carried out in the UK. It
Speaker 1: was first established in nineteen ninety eight and it began
Speaker 1: with a cohort of around four thousand, three hundred children
Speaker 1: aged twelve on average, who are all in their first
Speaker 1: year of secondary school in the city of Edinburgh. The
Speaker 1: main aim of the study was to further increase our
Speaker 1: understanding of criminal behavior amongst young people by studying them
Speaker 1: over a long period of development from early adolescents through
Speaker 1: to adulthood. This is an example of a self report
Speaker 1: study and victim survey together so could be used to
Speaker 1: answer both exam questions. The study found that children from
Speaker 1: single parent families and those in care to have the
Speaker 1: highest levels of criminality, showing that crime rates rise as
Speaker 1: you go down through the social class scale. Boys were
Speaker 1: twice as criminal as girls, and crime rates were higher
Speaker 1: when parents were unemployed. They found correlations between impulsivity in
Speaker 1: children who had high levels of criminality were also more
Speaker 1: likely to be victims. They found lower offending rates for
Speaker 1: those youths who were closely supervised by parents. The strongest
Speaker 1: correlation was between offending rates and the use of alcohol
Speaker 1: or drugs and friends who were also offenders. There are, however,
Speaker 1: many problems with self report studies. Feminists would criticize them
Speaker 1: for failing to highlight the way in which women are
Speaker 1: treated differently by the criminal justice system. Self report studies
Speaker 1: failed to highlight the victimization that women suffer, and therefore
Speaker 1: they would suggest that victimization studies are much more effective.
Speaker 1: According to feminists, these will reveal the level of victimization
Speaker 1: that women suffer in relation to sexual and domestic violence,
Speaker 1: which can often be lost in self report studies. Self
Speaker 1: report studies are often carried out on young adults and
Speaker 1: often include quite minor crimes, meaning they do not represent
Speaker 1: the older population and cannot be generalized across other groups.
Speaker 1: They also tend to be unrepresentative because they focus on
Speaker 1: relatively small groups of people, as we found in Campbell's research,
Speaker 1: and or particular types of crimes. They do not include
Speaker 1: sexual crimes, domestic violence, and white collar crimes or murder.
Speaker 1: Participants may also conceal offending or make false claims about
Speaker 1: what they have done even though they are anonymous, because
Speaker 1: they may have a mistrust of the police. So, therefore,
Speaker 1: do we know that we're still getting accurate and high
Speaker 1: levels of validity from self report studies? In conclusion, it
Speaker 1: may be best to use what we call method pluralism
Speaker 1: when we're trying to understand crime, and this means the
Speaker 1: truly measure crime. We should use official crime statistics, self
Speaker 1: report surveys, and victim surveys altogether to offer a much
Speaker 1: broader picture rather than just relying on one method alone. So,
Speaker 1: from listening to this episode, could you answer the following questions. Firsty,
Speaker 1: can you name the three different ways in which crime
Speaker 1: is measured in the UK? Can you also name three
Speaker 1: examples of studies that use victim surveys as their research method.
Speaker 1: Could you name three studies that use self report studies
Speaker 1: as their research method? Imagine you had an essay on
Speaker 1: one of these. Could you name two advantages and two
Speaker 1: disadvantages of official crime statistics? Could you name two advantages
Speaker 1: and two disadvantages of victim surveys? And finally, could you
Speaker 1: date two advantages and two disadvantages of victim studies. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much for listening, and in episode three we
Speaker 1: are going to look at the functionist explanations for crime
Speaker 1: and deviants. The Sociology Show podcast now offers online tutoring.
Speaker 1: Whether you want a single session or a regular slot,
Speaker 1: then you can book up depending on your needs. You
Speaker 1: can book a one hour, one and a half hour,
Speaker 1: or two hour slot by simply visiting www dot calendly
Speaker 1: dot com Forward slash Sociology Show Tutoring. That's c a
Speaker 1: l e n d l y dot com. Forward slash
Speaker 1: Sociology Show Tutoring. Thank you for your continued support of
Speaker 1: the show.