Crime and crime lexical items

Type of activity: This is a vocabulary activity in which students learn language associated with crimes and police.

Level: High intermediate and above

Teacher's notes:

Ask the students to think of the news that they have seen/heard or read about lately. Ask them if they have heard of any big court cases e.g. the OJ Simpson one or something not as infamous; they can talk about this in pairs.
Once they have done this for a few minutes, ask them to brainstorm words that they associate with crimes and the police etc.
Then dictate the words below; you will need to help the students with the spelling of the words and possibly write the correct versions on the board once they have done as much as they can. Ask the students, in pairs, to try to put the words in the order that they occur:
Ask the students to shout out what they felt, many they will probably not know.
Help them and give them the order that you feel is correct, although note that they do not always follow a strict order. Clarify any meanings that are unclear.
Hand out the text below. Ask the students to read the text and to think about whether they felt sorry for the criminal or not.
Once the students have answered the above question, ask them to look through the text and match the previously taught words to what happened to him i.e. He committed the crime; he was caught; he was interrogated etc.
Follow-up this activity by asking the students to play ALIBI, which can be found on this site under role plays.

A man caught after 36 years

A robbery was committed on March 28th 1968 in the suburbs of Ohio. A house was burglarized and over $20,000 was taken. At the time, no evidence was found except for an unopened letter which was thought to have fallen from the robber’s pocket. The letter was hand-written by the robber and signed but unsent. It was written to a friend stating that he, the robber, would soon see his friend in Mexico with the cash. A suspect was questioned and held but nothing substantial linked the man to the crime. He was asked to sign a piece of paper to see whether it was the same as the letter but it wasn’t. Clearly he realized that the same signature would link him to the crime. He was released and the crime went unsolved. Years later, the same man went back to Ohio and walked into a hotel; he was asked to sign in, unfortunately for him the receptionist in the hotel happened to be the owner of the house that he had robbed all those years earlier. As soon as she saw his signature she began to get suspicious. She called the police who immediately took him in for questioning. He was interrogated and eventually admitted his guilt. At the trial, he again pleaded guilty. The judge deliberated over his sentence before eventually sentencing him to three years in prison. When the robber was asked about his crime he said that his only mistake was not sending the letter before he committed the crime.