CRCJ 2334 Intro to Criminal Justice System

Making and Supporting an Argument

It is important that you learn to recognize well constructed arguments in the materials you read and in what you write.  Any claims that you make must be supported by scholarly theory and/or observable fact.  You should not put the reader in a position to assume or infer anything about the point that you are making.

What do we mean by scholarly theory?  This is where you will cite the work of a qualified researcher which shows that there is a connection between the claim that you are making and observable facts or data.  Theories explain (or try to explain) the "Why."  Why does this happen?  Why this person?  Why this action?  Why is this the state of the world or society?  Theories themselves are based on research, so we are essentially taking a shortcut thanks to the work of other scholars.  We don't need to go back and prove EVERYTHING all over again.  We can just focus on our current claims.

Here is a very simple example:

Claim- More car break-ins occur in neighborhoods with street or driveway parking than in neighborhoods where most houses have attached garages because street and driveway parking provides the right conditions for crimes of opportunity. 

Data- From 2015-2020 there were X number of car break-ins in Neighborhood 1 which has predominantly street or driveway parking.  During the same time period there were Y fewer number of car break-ins in Neighborhood 2 where most houses have attached garages.

DON'T STOP THERE

It is tempting to feel like you have made your argument just with the information above.  It seems like common sense right?  However, you really haven't supported your argument because you haven't explained and cited research regarding what the conditions are for crimes of opportunity and why street parking meets these conditions.  In other words, you need to explain why the data (or observation) means what you claim that it means.

In the Toulmin method of building an argument this is called the "warrant," but you could also call it theory or established research.

So adding in the theory, your argument would look something like this:

Claim- More car break-ins occur in neighborhoods with street or driveway parking than in neighborhoods with garages because street and driveway parking provides the right conditions for crimes of opportunity. 

Data- From 2015-2020 there were X number of car break-ins in Neighborhood 1 which has predominantly street or driveway parking.  During the same time period there were Y fewer number of car break-ins in Neighborhood 2 where most houses have attached garages (remember you need a citation for the source of your statistics). 

Warrant/Theory- The routine activity theory identifies four factors associated with crimes of opportunity: value of the item, size of the item, the item catching the offender's attention by being casually visible, and the offender having easy access to the item (you need a citation from research or another reliable source that establishes the routine activity theory as accepted in criminology). 

Conclusion- Cars parked on the street may have small, high value items accidentally left out in the open where they are easily visible to potential offenders who only need to break a window to grab the item and escape.  In neighborhoods where most residents have garages, cars are a more likely to be in secured areas where tempting small items are not visible and entry and escape are more challenging. 

In reality, there are many other conditions and theories that might explain why one area experiences more crime or more of a particular type of crime.  This is just to give you an idea of how you might structure an argument.

The value here is that I can clearly see your train of thought and I can go back and look at the sources you used to replicate your logic.  I might not agree with it, and frequently scholars don't agree with each other or they think that the claim is only partially true.  That is part of the process of building knowledge.  If I wanted to disagree with you, I have an idea of where your logic might be flawed or incomplete and how I can add more nuance to your claim with my own research or come up with a counter-claim.