How do I approach: "Explore the significance of justice and injustice in two crime texts you have studied"

This type of question crops up in the AQA A Level English Lit B in papers 1 and 2 for both options (here it is for Crime, but also applicable for Tragedy, Comedy and Social/Political Protest). The question invites you to look at one particular theme/aspect (which is bullet pointed in the syllabus) of the genre in relation to two texts you have studied. It is deceptively tricky in two areas: 1) it doesn't lead you to fall on either side of an argument, 2) you have to be a bit tactical in what texts you use, as the remainder of the three texts you have studied will then have to be discussed in a solo question. It is important that your essay has an argument - a loose "exploration" of the theme is not enough. You have to find some form of a conclusion: this might be that your selected texts argue X about the theme, or that they differ in their representations of Y. There will be justice and injustice in all your Crime texts - I would advise that you focus on something more specific that bridges your selected texts. When I responded to this essay, my argument was that "The poetry of Browning and Wilde, alongside 'Brighton Rock', subvert conventions by creating a paradoxical portrayal of justice as the true force of injustice." Conventions and expectations of the genre can also be a great place to look if you're struggling to find an argument: do your texts have a subversive view? If the texts have differing representations of the theme, does this illuminate something about the genre? Your argument can also come from interrogation of the key words in the question (which you should do in all essays anyway). How do you/the texts define 'justice'? Do your texts show 'justice' in differing forms? Once you have an argument, it is then important to be selective your your chosen examples of evidence and textual support in order to back you up (or provide some counter). It is frustrating in a situation in which you have a lot to say, but it is better to cut back to what is helpful and needed so that your overall argument is clear, and doesn't becoming the rambling, unstructured "exploration" this open question style can lead you to.