The current study researched the relationship between male and female violent victimizations as associated with national-level economic and social factors such as poverty, single parenting, urbanism, and African-American and crime-prone aged male populations through a regression analysis of crime rates from 1974-2005. These factors are in line with several criminological theories such as social disorganization (Shaw & Mckay, 1942), anomie-strain (Merton, 1968), violent subcultures (Anderson, 1999), social bond (Hirschi, 1969), self-control (Gottfredson & HIrschi, 1990), and biosocial perspectives (Raine, 2002).
The current study’s poverty measure was the only statistically significant positive predictor of victimization rates for both men and …show more content…
Essentially, as the black population grew so did the rate of victimization of females. From a social disorganization perspective, a higher minority presence causes difficulties in communities’ abilities to recognize common goals and enforce social control. Furthermore, blacks are thought to be effected by concentrated poverty at greater rates than whites (Massey & Eggers, 1990). Lauristen and Heimer (2009) point out that consistently blacks are the most victimized group of all races and further disaggregation by gender shows that black females are the most victimized group among all races of females within our time frame of study in terms of nonlethal violence. While black male victimization fluctuates as mostly higher than all other races, but sometimes lower than Hispanic male victimization and sometimes tied with white male victimization (Lauristen & Heimer, 2009). Thus a rise in the black population would likely result in a greater national victimization rate of females as black females are especially prone to …show more content…
For example, the poverty measure is not associated with specific neighborhoods (Shaw and McKay, 1949) or motivations (Merton, 1968), but rather the nation in entirety. Consequently, we are not sure which theoretical premise should be most credited for the significant and positive relationship between poverty and victimization, only that poverty is associated with national levels of victimization. There are similar studies admitting this limitation (McCall, Parker, & Macdonald, 2008; Pratt & Goodsey, 2003). However, researchers have found that as national poverty grows so does the concentration of impoverished populations (Kneebone & Berube, 2008), aiding in the argument for Shaw and Mckay’s (1942) and Anderson’s (1999) view of poverty. Furthermore, concentrated poverty is often associated with family disruption and minority presence (Massey & Eggers,
The current study’s poverty measure was the only statistically significant positive predictor of victimization rates for both men and …show more content…
Essentially, as the black population grew so did the rate of victimization of females. From a social disorganization perspective, a higher minority presence causes difficulties in communities’ abilities to recognize common goals and enforce social control. Furthermore, blacks are thought to be effected by concentrated poverty at greater rates than whites (Massey & Eggers, 1990). Lauristen and Heimer (2009) point out that consistently blacks are the most victimized group of all races and further disaggregation by gender shows that black females are the most victimized group among all races of females within our time frame of study in terms of nonlethal violence. While black male victimization fluctuates as mostly higher than all other races, but sometimes lower than Hispanic male victimization and sometimes tied with white male victimization (Lauristen & Heimer, 2009). Thus a rise in the black population would likely result in a greater national victimization rate of females as black females are especially prone to …show more content…
For example, the poverty measure is not associated with specific neighborhoods (Shaw and McKay, 1949) or motivations (Merton, 1968), but rather the nation in entirety. Consequently, we are not sure which theoretical premise should be most credited for the significant and positive relationship between poverty and victimization, only that poverty is associated with national levels of victimization. There are similar studies admitting this limitation (McCall, Parker, & Macdonald, 2008; Pratt & Goodsey, 2003). However, researchers have found that as national poverty grows so does the concentration of impoverished populations (Kneebone & Berube, 2008), aiding in the argument for Shaw and Mckay’s (1942) and Anderson’s (1999) view of poverty. Furthermore, concentrated poverty is often associated with family disruption and minority presence (Massey & Eggers,