Chat with us, powered by LiveChat PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT Week 2: The Evolution of Vic | Coms Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHMENT

Week 2: The Evolution of Victimology and the Influence of Bias

Most crimes imply a victim, and the definition of a crime as unlawful means that something can be made right again for a victim. Prior to industrialized societies, victims played a central role in restitution. The resulting inter-society violence and score settling that disrupted society, combined with the reorganization of many societies during industrialization, led to an evolution that changed the focus from victim restitution to offender punishment. Karmen (2020) refers to the ?rediscovery? of the victim?s role and the victim?s outcomes in the study of crime and justice that has occurred in recent decades. That evolution has helped criminal justice professionals better understand the full effect of criminal acts. Still, preconceived ideas about individuals and communities and their responses can lead to unfavorable outcomes for both victims and offenders. This week, you examine the change in perception and the treatment of victims before and after the emergence of the field of victimology.

Learning Objectives

Students will:

Analyze the effects of personal and media bias toward crime victims or offenders

Analyze the influence of media coverage on jury bias

Analyze the effect of major criminal events on victim legislation and the evolution of victimology

Analyze the effect of the field of victimology on the perception and treatment of victims

PLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS TOP AND BOTTOM TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO PUT THIS ASSIGNMENT TOGETHER AND You are invited to find your own example. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC WORD COUNT BUT REMBER NOTHING LESS THAN 200 WORDS MAKE SURE TO PAY ATTENTION TO ALL HIGHLIGHTED AREAS AND ADD REFERENCE TO YOUR WORK ALSO I HAVE ADDED A SAMPLE PAPER TO HELP GUIDE YOU TO PUT YOUR WORK TOGETHER. AND REMEMBER HOW YOU RESPOND TO THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE THE QUESTION RESPONSE YOU GET BACK FROM THE STUDENTS AND PROFESSOR SO MAKE SURE YOU ARE VERY DETAILED AND EXPLAIN YOUR WORDS CLEAR SO YOU WILL HAVE LESS QUESTIONS BACK FROM THE STUDENTS AND PROFESSOR

Discussion: The Role of Bias

The act of blaming a victim for his or her own victimization is referred to as victim blaming. This blaming can come from many sources including the offender, society, family members, health care providers, the media, and even criminal justice professionals.

The act of blaming a victim for their crime?which differs from actions that may inadvertently or structurally create criminal opportunity?may begin with bias. Preconceived, negative ideas about those involved in a crime may lead to a less than objective analysis of the facts in a case. These biases may be personal, come from a community, or be perpetuated by news outlets. And, bias can affect the offender as much as the victim, leading to such negative outcomes as victim blaming or jury bias.

In this Discussion, you first consider your own personal bias in relation to a criminal case before examining how bias in general can lead to consequential effects for offenders, victims, and juries.

To prepare:

Your Instructor may post a contemporary news story or other case that details a crime; alternately, your Instructor may invite you to find your own example.

Read the Instructor?s posted contemporary crime story or case. You may also refer to a story you researched.

Post a response to the following:

Based on either the case or news item that your Instructor posted or that you found, describe one bias you may have in relation to the circumstances.

Determine whether your bias falls in the category of victim blaming or is a bias toward the offender and explain why.

Explain how media coverage of the case contributes to overall bias and the possibility of jury bias.

1. BIAS

2. MEDIA COVERAGE

3. JUROR BIAS

12/09/2020

The Role of Bias

Week 2 Discussion

Bias is defined by Shiraev & Levy (2017) as a prejudicial inclination or predisposition that

inhibits, deters, or prevents impartial judgment. At some point during a case, it may be

improbable for anyone (e.g. jury, judge, lawyers, bystanders) that knows information about the

case to remain impartial and not let their own personals judgments cloud their decision or actions

regarding the case. To elucidate, being a bystander that is not involved in the case about to be

discussed the more information I have read about the case has made it more and more difficult

for me to remain impartial and unbiased. There is no question that I have sympathy for those

involved in the case that was unharmed and I feel devastated for those that lost their lives but

certain circumstances within the case leave me questioning those involved and the true intentions

behind the crime. To argue that point further, a 34-year-old man involved in the crime is being

accused of murdering two of his children through decapitation, keeping their bodies for five days

while occasionally showing his two other children that were unharmed the dead bodies of their

siblings (Winton & Hamilton, 2020). Not to mention, the mother of the children was also in the

house unharmed. When the father decapitated his two older children the two younger siblings

and the mother were instead the home while the murders took place. Why were the two eldest

children murdered in such a vile manner but the two youngest who were also inside the home at

the time of the crime were unharmed? Why was the mother of the children unharmed? What was

the mother of the children doing while the father was killing their children? Did she not hear

them scream? Was there not a struggle? The number of questions this case produces and the lack

of answers that it supplies makes it improbable, at least for me, to remain impartial and unbiased.

This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 03-06-2022 12:21:14 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/79137811/Week-2-Discussiondocx/

Most of the bias that I have for the case discussed above falls in the category of offender

blaming or having a bias towards the offender. Offender blaming, as illustrated by Karmen

(2020) is the action of removing the burden of responsibility from the victim and returns the

responsibility of the crime entirely onto the offender. This is because the man involved in the

crime elected to murder just two of his children. Why only two? If he were going to murder half

of his children, why would he not murder his other children? What happened with the two eldest

children that he felt the need to murder them? Another reason my bias falls in the category of

offender blaming is for five days this man kept his children?s decapitated bodies inside his home;

with his wife; with his two other children; living as if he did not murder his oldest children. It is

almost as if he had this crime planned out. I do not understand how if he just snapped one day

because of all of the co-vid restrictions and quarantining that has been going on this year how he

could only snap and murder two of the five living in the home.

Unfortunately, a small portion of my bias does fall within the realm of victim-blaming. To

explain, victim-blaming is the argument that specific victims bear some responsibility for the

crime that took place along with the offender (Karmen, 2020). How was the mother of the

children unharmed? Where was the mother of the children as the murders took place? Did she

attempt to protect and save her children? When the murders were taking place why did the

mother or the younger siblings not call the authorities or run to a neighbor for help? It would not

have been possible for this man to murder these two children and keep the other three individuals

inside the home. If the mother would have attempted to save or protect her children or ask for

help at the first sign of alarming actions and mannerisms from her husband, it is possible that the

crime would have never taken place and those children would have never lost their lives. I am

not someone who condones victim-blaming but certain cases, certain people, and certain aspects

This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 03-06-2022 12:21:14 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/79137811/Week-2-Discussiondocx/

make an individual like myself question the intentions of the ?victims? within the case. Their

actions or lack thereof are a playing factor in the crime whether they are aware of it or not.

Depending on the extremeness of the crime that takes place depends on how much media

coverage happens and how much information is then released about the offender, victims, and

the impending court case which then rolls into bias or the possibility of jury bias. The more

media coverage there is the more probability of bias occurs. Any information that I have learned

about this case has come from some form of media coverage. For instance, the first time I heard

of this case was on my ?Daily Mail? news app within a social media app. This case was vile

enough to make it on a worldwide app that thousands of millions of individuals use each day. At

this point creating a jury panel of individuals that have not heard or read about this case in some

aspect is almost impossible. To argue this point further, a jury panel free of bias regarding a high-

profile case that has had national media coverage such as the one discussed is impractical unless

those individuals do not have access to smartphones, television, radio, or the internet. Essentially,

to elevate bias for a case you have to elevate any means of information about the case through

media coverage. Any information about the case or crime needs to come from evidence, not from

media coverage that is based on someone else?s opinion on the crime itself.

This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 03-06-2022 12:21:14 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/79137811/Week-2-Discussiondocx/

References

Karmen, A. (2020). Crime Victims: an introduction to victimology (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2017). Cross-Cultural Psychology: Critical Thinking and

Contemporary Applications (6th ed.). Routledge.

Winton, R., & Hamilton, M. (2020, December 9). Father decapitated two children, forced other

kids to view bodies over five days, prosecutors allege. Los Angeles Times.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-12-09/lancaster-father-charged-

decapitations-son-daughter.

This study source was downloaded by 100000800531006 from CourseHero.com on 03-06-2022 12:21:14 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/79137811/Week-2-Discussiondocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

August 2007, NCJ 214258

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Black Victims of Violent Crime
by Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

BJS Statistician

Blacks were victims of an estimated 805,000 nonfatal
violent crimes and of about 8,000 homicides in 2005. While
blacks accounted for 13% of the U.S. population in 2005,
they were victims in 15% of all nonfatal violent crimes and
nearly half of all homicides. These findings are based on
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics? National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation?s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Program
(UCR), Supplementary Homicide Reports.

Among blacks the risk of nonfatal violent victimization var-
ied across demographic characteristics. During the 5-year
period from 2001 to 2005, comparative nonfatal violent vic-
timizations showed ?

? Black males were more vulnerable to violent victimization
than black females.

? Younger blacks were generally more likely than older
blacks to be victims of violence.

? Blacks who had never married were more likely than all
other blacks to be victims of violence.

? Blacks in households with lower annual incomes were at
a greater risk of violence than those in households with
higher annual incomes.

? Blacks living in urban areas were more likely than those in
suburban or rural areas to be victims of violence.

Black victims of homicide were most likely to be male
(85%) and between ages 17 and 29 (51%). Homicides
against blacks were more likely than those against whites
to occur in highly populated areas, including cities and sub-
urbs. About 53% of homicides against blacks in 2005 took
place in areas with populations of at least 250,000 people,
compared to about 33% of homicides of white victims.
Blacks were killed with a firearm in about 77% of homicides
against them.

Overall, the rates of nonfatal violent victimization against
blacks were stable between 2001 and 2005, after declining
about 57% from 1993 to 2001. During the 5-year period
from 2001 to 2005, the average annual rate of nonfatal
violent victimization against blacks was 29 victimizations
per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. For whites the rate was
23 per 1,000, and for Hispanics, 24 per 1,000. Among all
groups examined, only American Indians (57 per 1,000)
had a higher average annual rate of nonfatal violent
victimization than blacks.

Between 2001 and 2005, about half of all nonfatal violence
against blacks was characterized as a serious violent
crime, which includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated assault and excludes simple assault. Robbery
accounted for about 15% of violent crimes against blacks, a
higher percentage than for whites (9%), but similar to that
for Hispanics (15%). Aggravated assault made up more
than a quarter of violence against black victims, compared
to 18% of violence against white victims.

Of nonfatal violent crimes against blacks, nearly 14%
involved an offender armed with a firearm and about a third
resulted in an injury to the victim. About half of all nonfatal
violent crimes against blacks were reported to police.

Nonfatal violent victimization declined for blacks/African
Americans, whites, and Hispanics age 12 or older between
1993 and 2005

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
0

20

40

60

80

Rate of nonfatal violent victimization

Black*

White*

Hispanic

per 1,000 persons age 12 or older

*Not Hispanic or Latino.

2 Black Victims of Violent Crime

Violent victimization rates for blacks declined from
1993 to 2001 but were stable from 2001 to 2005

The overall rate of nonfatal violent victimization against
blacks declined by nearly 57% between 1993 and 2001
(table 1). The rate for the overall population declined 54%
during the period (not shown in table). Except for persons
age 50 or older, the violent victimization rates declined for
all subgroups of the black population that were examined.
The decline for black males (61%) was somewhat greater
than for black females (53%) (figure 1). By location of
residence, from 1993 to 2001 the decline in the rates of
violent victimization for blacks in urban areas was smaller
than for blacks in rural areas and slightly larger than for
those in suburban areas (figure 2).

Between 2001 and 2005, the rate of nonfatal violent crimes
against blacks did not change significantly despite
apparent fluctuations for some subgroups. For the overall
population the rate was stable. During this period, there
were no significant changes in the rates of violent
victimization by gender, age, or location of residence.

In 2005 black males were somewhat more vulnerable to
violent crimes than black females. Blacks age 24 and under
had higher rates of violent victimization than blacks age 25
or older. Blacks living in urban areas had the highest rates
of violent victimization in 2005, and those in rural areas had
the lowest rates.

Table 1. Violent victimization rates of blacks/African
Americans by gender, age, and location of residence,
1993, 2001, and 2005

Characteristic
of victim

Violent victimization rate Percent change
1993 2001 2005 1993-2001 2001-2005

Total 69.3 29.7 28.6 -57.1%? -3.7%ns

Gender
Male 79.7 31.4 33.0 -60.7%? 5.3%ns
Female 60.6 28.4 25.0 -53.2? -11.9ns

Age
12-15 133.0 51.3 46.5 -61.4%? -9.4%ns
16-19 124.9 69.5 71.9 -44.4? 3.4ns
20-24 119.6 38.3 51.4 -68.0? 34.3ns
25-34 61.5 29.5 29.5 -52.0? 0.1ns
35-49 62.6 22.6 20.1 -64.0? -11.0ns
50-64 18.4 18.8 16.1 2.3ns -14.7ns
65 or older 11.0 4.7* 1.1* -57.1ns -77.8ns

Location of residence
Urban 86.7 38.2 37.3 -56.0%? -2.2%ns
Suburban 54.3 24.9 20.2 -54.2? -18.9

ns

Rural 37.2 9.3 18.2 -74.9? 95.0ns

nsNot statistically significant.
?Significant at 0.95.
*Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

The National Crime Victimization Survey

The NCVS is the Nation?s primary source of information
on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of
criminal victimization. One of the largest continuous
household surveys conducted by the Federal
Government, the NCVS collects information about
crimes both reported and not reported to police.

The survey provides the largest national forum for
victims to describe their experiences of victimization,
the impact of crime, and the characteristics of violent
offenders.

For current overall estimates of criminal victimization in
the United States, see Criminal Victimization, 2005, at
<www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv05.htm>. Other
findings from the NCVS are also on the BJS website.

Violent victimization of blacks/African Americans
by location of residence, 1993-2005

Figure 2

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
0

20

40

60

80

100

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Rate of violent victimization per 1,000 black
persons age 12 or older

Violent victimization of blacks/African Americans,
by gender, 1993-2005

Figure 1

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
0

20

40

60

80

100

Male

Female

Rate of violent victimization per 1,000 black
persons age 12 or older

Black Victims of Violent Crime 3

In 2005 nearly half of all homicide victims were black

Blacks accounted for 49% of all homicide victims in 2005,
according to the FBI’s UCR.* Black males accounted for
about 52% (or 6,800) of the nearly 13,000 male homicide
victims in 2005. Black females made up 35% (or 1,200) of
the nearly 3,500 female homicide victims. The number of
black males murdered increased between 2004 and 2005,
while the number of black females murdered remained the
same (figure 3). A higher percentage of black homicide vic-
tims (36%) than white victims (26%) were ages 13 to 24.
About half (51%) of black homicide victims were ages 17 to
29, compared to about 37% of white victims.

Homicides against blacks were more likely than those
against whites to occur in highly populated areas, including
cities and suburbs. About half (53%) of black homicides in
2005 took place in areas with populations of at least
250,000 people. A third (33%) of white homicides occurred
in places with that size population.

In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one
offender were intraracial. About 93% of black homicide vic-
tims and 85% of white victims in single victim and single
offender homicides were murdered by someone of their
race. Women were the offenders in about 10% of single
victim and single offender homicides of both blacks and
whites.

Intimate partners (current or former spouses, boyfriends, or
girlfriends, including same-sex relationships) were respon-
sible for relatively fewer homicides among blacks (6%) than
among whites (12%) in 2005. Gang violence accounted for
about 5% of black homicides and about 7% of white homi-
cides. Blacks were killed with firearms in about 77% of
homicides against them in 2005, compared to 60% of white
homicide victims.

*For overall estimates of homicides, see Homicide Trends in the United
States <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm>.

Violent crime rates between 2001 and 2005 were higher
for blacks than for whites, Hispanics, and Asians

Between 2001 and 2005 blacks had higher rates of violent
victimization than whites, Hispanics, and Asians (table 2).
American Indians were the only group that had rates higher
than blacks.

Blacks were more likely to experience an aggravated
assault than whites or Hispanics

Between 2001 and 2005 the average annual rate of aggra-
vated assault for blacks (8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or
older) was nearly twice that of whites (4 per 1,000) and
slightly higher than that of Hispanics (5 per 1,000). While
blacks were more likely than whites to experience aggra-
vated assault, blacks and whites were equally likely to
experience a simple assault during the 5-year period.
Blacks were at a greater risk of rape or sexual assault than
any other racial/ethnic group except American Indians.

Serious violent crime made up nearly half of nonfatal
violent crimes against blacks between 2001 and 2005

Serious violent victimization consists of rape or sexual
assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. It usually
involves serious injury to the victim or an offender armed
with a weapon. These offenses comprised about 48% of
the violent crimes against blacks between 2001 and 2005,
a percentage higher than that for whites, American Indians
and Hispanics but similar to that of Asians.

Race/Hispanic
origin

Serious violent crime as a per-
cent of all nonfatal violent crime,
2001-2005

Black/African American* 48.0%
White* 31.0
American Indian/Alaska

Native* 30.5
Asian/Pacific Islander* 42.1
Hispanic/Latino 40.1

*Not Hispanic or Latino.

Homicide victims by race and gender of the victim,
1993-2005

Figure 3

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500
Number of homicide victims

Black male

White male

Note: Excludes victims of other races and unknown race.
Data include Hispanic or Latino persons.

White female

Black female

Table 2. Average annual violent victimization rate by race/
Hispanic origin and type of crime, 2001-2005

Rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older
Race/Hispanic
origin

Total vio-
lent crime

Rape/sexual
assault Robbery

Assault
Aggravated Simple

Black/African
Americana 28.7 1.7 4.3 7.7 14.9

Whitea 22.8 0.9 2.0 4.2 15.7
American Indian/

Alaska Nativea 56.8 0.9b 4.8b 11.6 39.5
Asian/Pacific
Islandera 10.6 0.5b 2.3 1.7 6.2
Hispanic/Latino 24.3 0.8 3.6 5.3 14.5
aNot Hispanic or Latino.
bBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

4 Black Victims of Violent Crime

Among blacks, males and those in urban areas were
the most vulnerable to robbery victimization

Between 2001 and 2005, blacks were victims of an aver-
age of about 121,000 robberies per year, representing an
average annual robbery victimization rate of about 4 per
1,000 blacks age 12 or older. This was higher than the rate
for whites and similar to that for Hispanics. Between 2001
and 2005, robberies made up about 15% of all violent
crime against blacks, a percentage higher than that for
whites and similar to that for Hispanics (see appendix
table 5).

Between 2001 and 2005, blacks ages 12 to 19 made up
about 37% of all black robbery victims, a percentage similar
to that for Hispanics (table 3). Males made up the majority
of robbery victims among blacks, whites and Hispanics.
About a third of black robbery victims lived in households
with annual incomes of less than $15,000.

Black robbery victims were less likely than white victims
and as likely as Hispanic robbery victims to live in house-
holds with annual incomes of at least $50,000. Black rob-
bery victims (65%) were more likely than white robbery vic-
tims (41%) to live in urban areas.

About 40% of black robbery victims faced an offender
armed with a firearm (table 4). They were more likely than
white and Hispanic robbery victims to face an offender with
a firearm. Blacks were as likely as Hispanics and whites to
be injured during a robbery.

The rate of robbery victimization for blacks decreased from
about 13 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1993 to
about 4 per 1,000 in 2001 (figure 4). There was no differ-
ence between the 2001 and 2005 rates of robbery for
blacks.

Table 3. Robbery victimization by gender, age, annual
household income, and location of residence, by race/
Hispanic origin, 2001-2005

Characteristic
of robbery victim

Percent of robbery crimes
Black/African
Americana Whitea

Hispanic/
Latino

Total 100% 100% 100%

Gender
Male 66.7% 64.5% 65.9%
Female 33.3 35.5 34.1

Age
12-19 36.9% 21.9% 27.4%
20-24 11.9 18.0 18.1
25-34 20.2 18.5 27.9
35-49 17.6 24.1 16.3
50-64 10.1 12.0 7.4
65 or older 3.2b 5.5 2.9b

Annual household income
Less than $7,500 17.2% 10.7% 5.3%b

$7,500 to $14,999 18.0 11.7 15.4
$15,000 to $24,999 21.4 12.8 27.7
$25,000 to $34,999 15.6 12.1 17.6
$35,000 to $49,999 10.7 14.1 16.6
$50,000 or more 17.0 38.5 17.4

Location of residence
Urban 64.7% 41.0% 68.8%
Suburban 27.6 47.8 30.7
Rural 7.7 11.2 0.5b

Note: Detail may not add to 100% due to rounding.
aNot Hispanic or Latino.
bBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Robbery victimization by victim race/Hispanic origin,
1993-2005

Figure 4

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
0

5

10

15

20

Rate of robbery victimization per 1,000
persons age 12 or older

Black*Hispanic

White*

*Not Hispanic or Latino.

Table 4. Weapons present and injuries sustained by victim
during robbery, by victim race/Hispanic origin, 2001-2005

Percent of robbery crimes
Characteristic
of robbery incident

Black/African
Americana Whitea

Hispanic/
Latino

Total 100% 100% 100%

Presence and type of weapon
No weapon 28.4% 43.1% 37.8%
Weapon 57.3 45.2 47.5

Firearm 39.8 21.4 24.4
Knife 7.9 12.0 14.9
Other 6.6 9.8 7.7
Unknown 3.1b 2.0 0.5b

Do not know if offender had
weapon 14.2 11.7 14.7

Injury
Not injured 66.1% 61.6% 64.5%
Injured 33.9 38.4 35.5

Note: Excludes persons who did not know if they had been injured.
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.
aNot Hispanic or Latino.
bBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Black Victims of Violent Crime 5

Most nonfatal violence against blacks was intraracial;
victim/offender relationship varied by victim gender

About four-fifths of black victims of nonfatal violence per-
ceived the offenders to be black (table 5). About 12% of
black victims perceived the offender to be white, while
about 8% thought the offender was neither black nor white
(categorized as other races on table 5). Blacks (78%) were
more likely to be victims of intraracial violence than whites
(70%).

Black males were more likely to be violently victimized by
strangers than black females (table 6). Black female victims
of violent crime were more likely than black male victims to
be victimized by an intimate partner. Intimate partner vio-
lence accounted for 21% of violent victimizations against
black females, compared to about 5% of victimizations
against black males. The gender disparity for intimate part-
ner violence among blacks was similar to that for other vic-
tims.

Rate of nonfatal gang violence against blacks was
about 3 per 1,000 between 2001 and 2005

The rate of violent crimes against blacks that were
committed by offenders who were perceived to be gang
members was higher than that for whites and Asians but
similar to that for Hispanics and American Indians.

Between 2001 and 2005 blacks perceived the offender to
be a member of a street gang in about 9% of violent crimes
against them. In 43% of violence against blacks, the victim
did not know if the offender was a gang member.

A quarter of violence against blacks was committed by
offenders under the influence of alcohol or drugs

Black victims were less likely than white victims, somewhat
less likely than American Indian victims, and as likely as
Asian and Hispanic victims to face an offender under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. About 25% of nonfatal
violence against blacks involved an offender perceived to
be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The victim did
not know if the offender was under the influence of alcohol
or drugs in 48% of violence against blacks (not shown on
table).

Race/Hispanic origin of victims
who perceived offender to be a
gang member

Rate per 1,000 persons
age 12 or older, 2001-2005

Black/African Americana 2.5
Whitea 0.9
American Indian/Alaska Nativea 1.8b

Asian/Pacific Islandera 0.5b

Hispanic/Latino 2.7
aNot Hispanic or Latino.
bBased on 10 or fewer sample cases.

Victims perceived offender
to be a gang member

Percent of nonfatal
violent crime against
blacks, 2001-2005

Gang member 9.1%
Not a gang member 47.8
Unsure of gang membership 43.0

Note: Detail may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Race/Hispanic origin of victims
who perceived offender to be
under the influence of
alcohol or drugs

Percent of violent crime,
2001-2005

Black/African American* 25.3%
White* 31.2
American Indian/Alaska Native* 39.5
Asian/Pacific Islander* 23.4
Hispanic/Latino 26.9

*Not Hispanic or Latino.

Table 6. Victim/offender relationship of black/African
American victims and other victims, by gender, 2001-2005

Percent of violent victimization

Victim/offender
relationship

Black/African
American victimsa Other victimsb

Male Female Male Female

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Intimate 4.6 20.9 3.5 21.6
Other relatives 3.9 7.9 4.7 9.1
Well known/casual
acquaintance 35.6 37.9 34.1 35.9
Stranger 55.9 33.4 57.7 33.4

Note: Excludes data in which the victim/offender relationship was
unknown. Detail may not add to 100% due to rounding.
aNot Hispanic or Latino.
bIncludes non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic American Indians, non-
Hispanic Asians and other Pacific Islanders, and Hispanic or Latino
persons of any race.

Table 5. Percent of violent victimization, by victim race/
Hispanic origin and offender race, 2001-2005

Victim race/Hispanic origin
Offender
racea

Black/African
Americanb Whiteb

American Indian/
Alaska Nativeb

Asian/Paci-
fic Islanderb

Hispanic/
Latino

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
White 11.5 69.7 47.3 37.1 46.9
Black/African

American 77.7 15.1 12.4 26.8 19.4
Other races 8.2 12.0 37.9 34.3 30.0
Two or more

races 2.6 3.2 2.6c 1.8c 3.7

Note: The other offender race category includes American Indians, Alaska
Natives, Asians, and other Pacific Islanders. The two or more race category
includes offenders who were of more than one race. Excludes

error: Content is protected !!