June 2025: Paper 3

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Question one was accessed well with many students scoring full marks. Boundary maintenance was the most popular response and even though it is not a requirement of the question to include the work of a sociologist to get the development mark, many students could identify Durkheim in this question. There was a range of identification points students used such as social cohesion and the warning device. When students used these, they were able to showcase their knowledge of contemporary affairs well and there were good examples such the Manchester bombings. There is a tendency to overwrite these smaller questions. The mark scheme highlights how the identification mark can be awarded, with a general idea on the detail required in the development mark.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of two ways clearly outlined, 1 if partial
• credited: boundary maintenance, social cohesion, warning device, social change, employment
• naming Durkheim not required for the development mark
• well answered but many overwrote

Mark scheme

Examiner's comment

Question two was on the whole answered well and there was a wide range of different responses provided, some with more success than others. There were some challenges faced with repetition, in particular with students who had used moral panics as their identification and then tried another identification with stereotyping, which led to repetition of the self- fulfilling prophecy. Many students also used the deviancy amplification spiral and discussion of the ‘mods and rockers’. Where this was used, students did not always focus on the question set as they did not discuss the increase in crime. A small number of students drifted away from the question set and discussed the lack of media representation of some groups. Some students made use of new media in this question, and when this was given as an identification, they were able to develop it by using examples of new types of media such as social media platforms and new types of crime such as hate crime or hacking. This showcased the range of knowledge in answers to this question.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• 2 marks for each of three ways clearly outlined
• credited: copycat crime, new media creating new crimes, desensitisation, relative deprivation from advertising, moral panics and stereotypes leading to targeting, undermining social controls
• moral panic then stereotyping repeated the same self-fulfilling prophecy point
• deviancy amplification often not linked to rising crime

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

In question three students found the hooks a challenge to access. Students read ‘punishment and rehabilitation’ as one hook. These could have been separated enabling students to write one point about punishment and one point about rehabilitation. Where students did this, they were more successful. Students found the ‘deter’ hook a challenge to access. Some students were able to talk about surveillance, however when students did this, they were not always able to develop their ideas or make links to the criminal justice system. Some students were able to make the link between policing and crime detection. This meant they were able to offer more development in the form of biased policing with regards to gender, social class or ethnicity. On occasion students could not apply the item and gave reasons which were not linked to the criminal justice system at all, such as tackling the root cause of crime and poverty.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must develop hooks from Item A (detecting crime, punishing, rehabilitating)
• the last line restates the question and is not a hook
• punishing and rehabilitating work best as two separate hooks
• credited: biased policing leaving some crimes undetected, high reoffending after prison
• root causes such as poverty with no link to the CJS not credited
• the examiners' report mentions a 'deter' hook that does not appear in the item

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Question four presented a variety of marks demonstrating that the question was differentiated appropriately. Students who did well were able to use the item for guidance and go beyond this with their own knowledge. Students who did well were able to use a variety of Marxist thinkers, with the work of Chambliss and Snider being the most frequently discussed. There were also some good examples of types of white-collar crime, selective law enforcement and punishment enabling students to fully showcase their knowledge. Where punishment was used as a knowledge point students were able to evaluate explicitly and give examples, of either people who have evaded punishment or those who have not, often people who hold political power were given as examples. Given this was a theory-based question it opens itself up more for juxtaposition in the form of evaluation. Some students wrote lengthy paragraphs about alternative theories such as ‘interactionism’ with no link or focus on the question set. The item did give some suggestive evaluation hooks in ‘patriarchy’ and ‘racism’. Students who did well were able to use these and apply these hooks to Marxism. Students should be encouraged to evaluate the points they have made using appropriate theory. There was a tendency to use non-Marxist writers as knowledge points, such as Merton and Cohen. Focus should be given to the target theory in the question. Lengthy introductions are not required for this question as students are under time constraints.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must apply Item B (capitalism and working-class crime, unpunished corporate crime, neo-Marxist resistance, racism and patriarchy)
• top band: debate with realists, functionalism, feminisms or usefulness of Marxist explanations
• best answers used Marxist writers (Chambliss, Snider) and examples of selective law enforcement
• non-Marxist writers (Merton, Cohen) used as knowledge points and long accounts of other theories drift off the target theory

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Question five presented mixed responses. Students who did less well found it hard to keep to just two problems and accounts of validity drifted off into access or representativeness. Students needed to focus on the question set and find two problems with primary methods. Students who performed well gave a problem and were able to link this to a relevant primary research method. They were also able to give an example of a study such as Milgram or Oakley to further illustrate their point.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• no marks for evaluation in this question type
• two problems each developed, e.g. loss of objectivity, ethical issues such as informed consent or guilty knowledge, access, cost and time
• best answers linked each problem to a specific primary method and a study (Milgram, Oakley)
• weaker answers drifted from validity into access or representativeness and could not keep to two

Mark scheme, including the levels grid and indicative content

Examiner's comment

Question six was an area of the specification which students found challenging. Those who did well were able to use the item and develop ideas with their own knowledge. Those students understood the theoretical nature of the debate but also social policy. They were able to give examples of social policy such as education acts or the Equality Act. For students who performed well, evaluation was a skill they were able to showcase, often using radical feminist views on policy as the knowledge point and the use of liberal feminism and the Equal Pay Act to evaluate. Students who did less well overused the item and repeated large parts of it. A number of students could not write much or give any examples of social policy. Lengthy introductions are not required for this question as students are under time constraints.

Notes from the mark scheme and report

• must apply Item C (functionalist consensus view, feminist critique)
• top band: debate between functionalism, Marxism, feminisms, New Right and social democratic views with real policy examples (Equality Act, education acts)
• many could not give examples of social policy or repeated the item
• drift into perspectives in general = 5–8