Sat, 27 Aug 1994 11:34:33 -0700 for Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 14:34 EDT From: "I don't think this will reduce confusion" Subject: Re: fear To: 1k1mgm@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu -- Sat, 27 Aug 1994 12:04:42 -0500 (CDT) >>>harm, frightening them with talk of stranger rape and abduction (without >>>of course trivializing these traumatic events to those that have hada to >>>endure them), they are more likely to be injured and killed in the >>>"safety" of their own home by those who are supposedly there to *protect* >>>them. Statistically, they would be safer iun a dark parking lot downtown >>>than at home or on a date. irony? >> >> No, somewhat misleading. By gross numbers, yes most violence against >>women occur in the household. However, on a rate per hour of exposure basis, >>a dark parking lot downtown is far more dangerous, perhaps an order of >>magnitutude of 15 to 20 times. >Maybe not *that* misleading. I'd bet a substantial amount of 'dark >parking lot crime' is family/acquaintance-based: stuff spilling out of >bars and clubs; quarrels with people in the same car; pre-arranged >meetings; hailings of friends/acquaintances; consensual or semi- >consensual meetings for transactions involving drugs, sex, stolen >property, etc. People in towns small enough that the papers still >report such things can check it out in the police reports fine print-- >most 'street crime' is made up of outdoors continuations of bar fights >plus adverse outcomes of drug and sex business. I'm sure the >*proportions* are different in LA and Newark, etc., but I doubt they're >that different. I do check out the police reports in our little town (State College, PA). There is not much of the sex business around here (at least not publically, though some no doubt exists) but very few street assaults /scuffles involve acquaintances. Many spill out from the bars, but rarely between people who know each other well. I should not have used the term parking lot crime in my original post. As far as I can ascertain there has only been one nationwide study (1985 NCS: Victim Risk Supplement) which asked detailed questions on where assaults occured. It is hardly definitive because of the relative rarity of criminal, espcially serious crimes (e.g., rape, agg. assaults, robberies) acts. The one study which I am aware of (and based the above statement on) was by Cohen and Felson in the late 1970's. They found that the risk of victimization was 10 - 20 times as high per unit time when not at home or work. In other words, in public spaces. More generally there is the whole problem of defining acquaintance versus stranger assaults. Sadly I feel that some defenitions are more driven by polemics than any real sociological interpretations. In addition, there is great room for honest disagreement between operational defenitions. An illustration: 1) A man and woman meet in a bar. They go to her place for drinks later. He rapes her. 2) A man and woman meet at the art museum. They arrange for dinner and a movie next weekend. Afterwards they go to his place and he rapes her. 3) A male and female co-worker decide to go on a date. He rapes her. Some research that I have read would classify all 3 cases as 'acquantance' rape. I would not. Case #1 is, to me, clearly a stranger rape. Case #3 is clearly an acquantance rape. Case #2, and where well-intentioned researchers may disagree, is problematic. A case can be made for either classification. >I don't think the original poster was trying to say that stranger-stranger >crime doesn't exist or that there are *no* Faceless Menaces out there, >just that the image and impact of the Predatory Stranger is *much* larger >in public consiousness than in reality, and that there's sociological >significance in this discrepancy. >[Looking over the above, it occurs to me that the term 'stranger-stranger' >crime is odd. I'm trying to differentiate that from 'stranger-ROLE' crime >where the participants may literally be unknown to each other but >one (typically but not necessarily the victim) occupies a known role, >e.g., the guy behind the cash register at the all-night mini-mart. >It could be argued from a sort of social psychological viewpoint that >conceptualization of stranger-role or role-role crime provides more >structure and therefore some feeling of control than true, random, >out-of-the-blue (and, realistically, uncommon) stranger-stranger >crime. And that a lot of the public/political nonsense going on is >an attempt to create structure and assign roles.] I'm not quite sure how this conceptualization would bring anything new to the table. Not that it is incorrect or anything. In particular, under this concepualization, just what would be a 'true, random, out-of-the-blue stranger- stranger crime?' From discussion with long-term offenders, I would say that there already exists a 'stranger-ROLE' from the standpoint of the criminal. "Dupe, sucker, citizen, lamb, weak," all come to mind as 'roles.' Jetaway Dave