You learned about the various ways in which we are made aware of crime and the different strengths and weaknesses of each of these methods of gathering crime statistics. You have also learned about how crime is defined can impact the overall perception and knowledge of crime. Directions: With the readings from week 1 and 2 in mind, answer each of the following questions. Be sure to fully answer each part of every question. 1. Discuss the different views (I.e., interactionist, consensus, conflict) that influence how crime is defined. Which do you think is the best definition and why? Your “why” should be supported with facts. 2. Discuss two strengths and two weaknesses of each of the various measures of crime. Which method do you think is best and why? 3. Discuss two ways in which you think we can lessen the dark figure of crime. 4. Based on your answers to questions 1-3, propose a new way in which you think crime data should be collected. * note- this question involves critical thinking and should be your unique idea. You should, however, use course material to back up your thoughts.
Sample Solution
regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pi regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pieces of data. It is fascinating regards to the osmosis of pieces into lumps. Mill operator recognizes pieces and lumps of data, the differentiation being that a piece is comprised of various pieces of data. It is fascinating to take note of that while there is a limited ability to recall lumps of data, how much pieces in every one of those lumps can change broadly (Miller, 1956). Anyway it’s anything but a straightforward instance of having the memorable option huge pieces right away, somewhat that as each piece turns out to be more natural, it very well may be acclimatized into a lump, which is then recollected itself. Recoding is the interaction by which individual pieces are ‘recoded’ and allocated to lumps. Consequently the ends that can be drawn from Miller’s unique work is that, while there is an acknowledged breaking point to the quantity of pi>
