u.s. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics , ;.~<. \ ' ~ 4 m
. ,. . , ,Y ,::" '/ -,,;,~' Bureau of Justice S.tatistics ., .J..' .. ' . .:'; ..) .L,.:t· ( .. ,Speci~r ·Report": ',; :- .:,~ ...., . "'. ~ ..... :', '. • • ". - ',_ . , '., I Violent Crime by Strangers and N on strangers
By Anita D. Timrots and crimes committed by relatives. and January 1987 Crimes by strangers refer to those Michael R. Rand committ.::c by total strangers, in which BJS Statisticians It is often said that the fear of the assailant was completely unknown crime is largely a fear of stran to the victim, and to those in whicp the Results from the National Crime Sur gers. As this Special Report assailant was known only by sight. vey (NCS) indicate that between 1982 indicates, while almost half of all Nonstranger crimes refer to those com and 1984 less than half of all violent violent crimes are committed by mitted by friends, acquaintances, or crimes were committed by total stran total strangers, almost 40% occur relatives. gers. Another 11 % of the violent among friends, acquaintances, or crimes were committed by persons relatives, including spouses or ex Past stUdies and evidence from the known to the victim by sight only. An spouses. This report, based upon NCS indicate that violence involving additional 31 % were committed by ac data from the National Crime nonstrangers, particularly relatives,.., quaintances and friends, and 8%, by rel Survey for 1982 through 1.984, ex may be underreported in the survey. '" atives. Other findings include: pands our knowledge of the nature Individuals victimized by relatives may and extent of crime by strangers be reluctant to discuss the event, espe o Among violent crimes, robbery was and by nonstrangers. It can assist cially if the offender is present at the most likely to be committed by a stran policy makers as they seek to (;;on in terview, for fear of reprisal or out of ger; homicide, least likely. trol not only "street crimell but shame or embarrassment. Further, also the violence among friends, some victims of domestic violence may • Most violent crimes by strangers neighbors, and family members not perceive these acts as criminal. (70%) were committed against males; that disrupts the lives of so man:, Consequently, the results reported here most crimes by relatives (77%) were of our citizens. may underestimate crimes by i'ersons committed against females. Steven R. Schlesinger known to the victim and therefore Director overestimate the proportion of crimes ., Spouses or ex-spouses committed over committed by strangers. half of aU crimes by relatives and about two-thirds of all crimes by relatives medical attention than victims of Victfm-ofIender relationship against women. crimes committed by relatives. O[ thg violent crimes m~asured by • Crimes by strangers were more often Introduction the NCS-rape, robbery, and assault- committed by two or more offenders 46% wel'e committed by total stran than were crimes by nonstrangers. Although crime is often discuS3ed -gel's. Another 11% were CQmmitted by as a single entity, crimes committed by persons known to the victim by sight • Stranger-to-stranger crimes more strangers differ in many ways from only; 31 % were committed by acquain- often involved a weapon but less often crimes commi tted by nonstrangers. This report highlights some of the dif resulted in an attack than nonstranger lOCCenders were considered to be known "by sight crimes. Crimes by relatives involved ferences in the characteristics of the only" It the victim never said more than hello to the an attack and injury more often than vit~tims, the offenders, and the crimes oefender. crimes by either strangers or acquain- themselves. 2 A 1971 reverse records check in San Jose found tances. . that known victims oC violent crime by a relative 'Por this report, three basic victim reported the Incident to a survey interviewer only 22'16 oC the time. Crimes by acquaintances were • Of those injured, victims of stranger offender relationships were examined: reported 58'16 oC tile time; crimes by strangers, 75'16 crimes and victims of crimes by ac stranger-to-stranger crimes, crimes ot the time. See also Surveying Crime, National quaintances were more likely to require committed by friends or acquaintances, Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1976. tances and friends; and 8%, by rela Of the violent crimes included in Victim characteristics tives. Spouses or ex-spouses were in the FBrs Uniform Crime Reports~..bom volved in 5% of all violent crimes (table icide was least likely to be committed" Sex and marital status 1). 'by !'strn~r. -nl r384, 18% of homi -Uldes Wel'e r
2 r.. *m sr!hools. Also, more than half of the higher than the average for all violent committed against city dwellers, fol victims of crimes by acquaintances had crime victims. More than three-fourths lowed closely by suburbanites. Violent never been married. In contrast to this, of the victims of a violent crime by a crimes by relatives were least often the average age o!victims of crimes by stranger were under age 35. About 3% committed against city dwellers. Vic relatives was higher largely because were age 65 or older. tims of crimes by relatiVes resided these crimes predominantly involved mostly in suburban areas, followed spouses or ex-spouses. Residence closely by rural areas. The highest per centage of victims of violent crimes by '!'he average age of stranger-to Violent crimes committed by stran acquaintances lived in suburban areas. stranger ct'ime victims was only slightly gers were most likely to have been Percellt oC victimizations Residence Acquain- Table 2. Violent c:ime victimizations, by victim characteristics oC victim Rela ti ve tance Stranger and victim-oC!ender relationship, 1982-84 City 26% 33% 43% Victim-oCCender relntior.shi~ Suburban area 39 37 39 Victim characteristics Relative Acquaintance Stranger Rural area 35 30 18 Total Percent oC victimizations 100 100 100 S~x oC victim 100% 100% 100% Male 23 54 70 Female 77 46 30 Race 100% 100% 10096 White 88 83 84 Black 10 16 14 Other 2 1 2 Age 100% 100% 100% 12-19 years old 15 39 25 20-24 26 20 23 25-34 34 24 29 35-49 18 12 15 50-64 6 4 6 65 anti over 2 1 3 Marital stalus Male 100% 10096 100% Married 39 26 33 Widowed 2- ... 1 Di'/orced 14 7 7 Separated l·t 3 3 Never married 31 64 56 Female 100% 10096 10096 Married 27 18 31 Widowed 3 3 4 Divorced 26 14 12 Separated 30 8 6 Never married 15 56 47
Number oC victimizations Total 1,502,400 6,114,000 11,488,000 Sex oC victim Male 343,300 3,318,900 8,045,100 Female 1,159,200 2,795,100 3,442,900 Race White 1,323,900 5,063,100 9,650,700 Black 145,300 977,900 1,582,500 Other 33,300 73,000 254,800 Age 12-19 years old 221,000 2,377,200 2,928,500 20-24 387,000 1,250,200 2,620,100 25-34 509,900 1,446,000 3,291,200 35-49 274,000 732,400 1,681,300 50~4 85,000 225,200 674,100 65 and over 25,500 82,300 292,900 Marital status Male 343,300 3,318,900 8,045,100 Married 134,200 862,400 2,688,100 Widowed 5,400· 10,000· 66,500 Divorced 46,500 226,400 548,900 Separated 49,400 98,500 226,90Q Never married 107,800 2,113,200 4,484,000 Female 1,159,200 2,795,100 3,442,900 Married 307,700 505,900 1,065,000 Widowed 35,500 84,100 137,500 Divorced 295,900 400,200 412,100 Separated 347,000 228,900 203,600 Never married 170,600 1,570,800 1,608,500
Note: Percentages may not total to 100 because oC rounding. Totals may include cases Cor which detail was not ascertained. -Represents 10 or rewer sample cases; see Methodology section. - Less than 0.5%.
3 - •
Offender characteristics . Table 3. Violent crime v\ctimizations, by vlcUm-1l{tender relatiOi13ltip and sex ot vl~tim and oCCender, 1982-'114 Violent crimes against most vic tims-whether male or female-were Percent or victimizations b:i sex of victimgnd otrender committed by male offenders (table Male victim female victim Ylctim-oCrender Male Female -- Male Female 3). Males were most likely to be vi<: rel.ltionship Total olCender oCfender Total offender offender "timized by a male in a stranger-to stranger confrontation (9796) and least Strange: :00% 91% 3% 100% 81% 18% Acquaintance ~OO 93 1 100 67 33 likely in a confrontation involving a l'el • Relative 100 65 35 100 93 7 ,ative (6596). Females, however, were most often victimized by a male in a Note: Table inr.lucies only victimizations committed by one oUender. crime by a relative (9396) and least of Total Includes victlmi::ations Cor which victims could not ascertain the oerender's sex. ten when the crime involved an ac quaintance (6796). age 30 or older.4 These were mostly NUmber of offenders Most violent crimes involved vic domestic crimes. Seventy-three per cent of crimes by acquaintances against Crimes by strangers involved mul tims and offenders 01 the same race - tiple offenders more often than did (table 4). Crimes by strangers were victims between ages 12 and 17 were committed by offenders under age 18. crimes by acquaintances or relatives. more interracial, however, than crimes About a third of the stranger-to-stran involving acquaintances or relatives. Stranger-to-stranger crimes were a ger incidents involved multiple offend White victims were assaulted by white little less likely to involve individuals ers. Among these incidents, 5496 of offenders in 7096 of stranger-to-stran ger crimes, 86% of acquaintance of the same age group. For example, robberies, 2996 of assaults, and 16% of crimes, and 9596 of crimes involving 4396 of the ofKenders in stranger-to rapes involved more than one assailant. relatives. Black victims were assaulted stranger crimes against victims 30 and by black offenders in 7796 of stranger older were in the same age group, while Percent oC incidents 4896 were between ages 18 and 29. Acquain- to-stranger crimes, 9196 of acquaint Relative tance Stranger ance crimes, and 95% of crimes by rel 4The age groupings used for these comparisons were atives. constrained by victims' abilities to estimate the One oleender 93% 84% 65% ages of their 8S!Iallants. The three oCCender age Two or more 7 16 35 groups roughly correspond to teenngers, young Total 100 100 100 Regardless of the victim's relation adults, and older adults. It Willi !elt that victims ship with the offendert people were would be better able to place their oCeenders into most likely to be victimized by an of such age groupings than to eccura tely guess their fender in the same age group as them exact ages. The Gges of victims were grouped to selves (table 5). For example, 77% of match those Cor oiCenders. violent crimes by relatives against per sons age 30 or older involved offenders
Table 4. Violent crime victimizations, by victim~Uender relationship and race of victim IUId oC!ender, 1982-304
Percent or victimizations b:l race oC vic~m and offender Victim- White victim Black victim Other race victim offender White Black Other race White Black Other race White Black Other race relationship Total offender offender offender Total offender oCfender oUender Total offender o!!ender o!!ender Stranger 100% 70% 24% 4% 100% 19% 71% 3% 100% 46'>6 36% 13% Acquaintance 100 86 10 4 100 8 91 ... 100 52 4- 44 Relative 100 95 2 2 100 5C1 95 ... 100 41- -* ~3· Note: Percentages may not total to 100 because or rounding. Table includes only victimizations committed by one oClender. Total includes victimizations for which victims could not ascertain the oUender's race. '"Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Metholodogy section. - Less than 0.5%...... J
~------~------~Table 5. Violent crime victimizations, by victim-1lCtender relationship and age or victim and oUender, 1982-84
Percent oC victimizations bx,.age ol victim and ofCender Vlctim ----cvTric:::t:r.im:="'l1'l'1"2'-'-1r::;7r":y::':e:":ars'=-"0~l:':!"a--"':";::';:'" Victim 18-29 :ieers old Victim 30 :leBrs old and older oCrender Ortender OCCender Offender OCCender Offender Ofrender Ofrender Otfender o (!ender relationship Total under 18 18-29 30+ Total under 18 18-29 30+ Total WIder 18 18 ..29 30+
Stranger 10096 50% 36% 12% 100% 696 6596 21% 10096 696 48% 4396 Acquaintance 100 73 20 7 100 6 66 21 100 7 33 58 Relative 100 IS"' 21 64 100 3 66 31 100 4 ;'8 77
Note: Table Includes only victimizations committed by one oUender. Total includes victimizations for which victims could not 8.SCertain lbe ollender's age. -Represents 10 or rewer sample cases; see Methodology section.
4 . ..
Incident characteristics Table 6. TIme IIIld place oC oceurrence oC violellt crime incidents, by vlcUm-oCrender relationship, 1982--34 Time and place of occurrence Percent of incidents About half of all violent .:!rimes oc Time and place oC occurrence Relative Acquaintance S:rangll.l' curred during the day (between 6 a.m. Time oC occurrence 100% 100% 10093 and 6 p.m.). This proportion did not Day, S a.m.-{; p.m. 49 56 44 differ substantiallY for the three vic Nighl, 6 p.m.--6 a.m. 49 43 56 tim-offender relationships (table 6). Don't know 1 - 1 A little more than half of the crimes Place of occurrence 100% 100% 100% 10 own home 58 18 4 . by acquaintances (56%) and a little less Near own home 11 14 9 than half of the crimes by strangers Friend's, relative's, 01' (4.4%) occurred during the daytime. I nei~hbor's home 15 12 4 About half of the crimes involving rela On the street 6 13 ~9 Commercial/retail tives occurred during this time period establishment 4 12 16 (49%). Parking lot 3 6 11 L, school, on school property 1· 16 ij Crimes involving relatives and ac Park, field, or playground 1· 2 3 quaintances most often occurred in or Other location 1 7 7 near the victim'S home (69% and 32%), Total number oC incidents 1,367,700 5,310,400 9,585,901) while crimes by strangers most often Note: Percentages may not total to 100 because of rounding. occurred on the street (39%). About Total may include cases Cor which d~tail was not ascertained. 4% of stranger-to-stranger incidents '"Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Methodology section. occurred inside the victim's home, com I -u Less than 0.596. .. pared to 18% of crimes by acquaintan ,..-.' ces and 58% of crimes by relatives. A Table 7. Violent crime vicUmizaUoos resulting !.it attack, higher percentage of violent crimes by injury, Ol' medical care. by vicUm-oCIender relationship, 1982-84 acquaintances than crimes by relatives - Percent or victimizations or strangers occurred in school or on ltesult oC victimization Rclatj;'e Acquaintanci! S~a.niar school property. Attack 6296 5196 4496 Level of violence !njury" 47 33 27 Gun or kniCe wound 1· 1 1 In general, a weapon was more like Other serious injury 4 3 Mlno~ injury 27 ly to be present in stranger crimes than 43" ~2 Injury requiring: in crimes committed by nonstrangers. 1r1edical attention 20 16 14 Offel/ders had a weapon in a fourth of Hospital Cfti"!) 4 4 4 the !Ionstranger crimes compared to Total numbel' oC victimizations 1,502,400 6,114,000 11,488,000 over a third of the stranger crimes. .. Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Metholodogy section. Pel'<:ent of victimizations ··Types oC injury add to marc thl1ll total because victim may have WII!! a w Japan Acquain- recE1ived more than one injury. Minor injuries include bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratci'lllS, and chipped teeth. " pre~ent? Relative tance Stranerer L--. Yes 2696 26% 36% ened or attacked by relatives (but not No 71 70 54 Most injuries resulting from an Don't know 4 4 10 injured) may not perceive the incident attack were minor regardless of the Total 100 100 100 as serious or as a crime at all and may victim-offender relationship. About not report it to a survey interviewer. four-fifths of the injuries inflicted by N'ote: Percentages may not total to 100 bflcause oC rounding. On the other hand, threats or attempt strangers and acquaintances and about ed attacks by strangers may be per nine-tenths of those inflicted by rela Violent crimes by nonstrangers, ceived as serious and therefore are re tives were in this category, which in however, were more likely than crimes por-ted to an interviewer more fre cludes bruises, black eyes, cuts, and by strangers to involve an attack (table quently. scratches. Injuries resulting from the 7). Among nonstranger crimes, those use of a gun or knife were a very smail committed by relatives involved an Though the victims were injured proportion of total injuries for all three attack more often than those t!ommit less often, the injuries resulting from groups of victims. ted by acquaintances. crimes by strangers and acquaintances required medical attention or hospi tal Violent crimes by relatives also in care more often than those resulting volved injury more often than crimes by from crimes by relatives. either acquaintances or strangers. Close to half of all victimizations in Per-cent oC victims injured by: 10jury Acquain- volving a relative resulted in injury requiring: Relative tance Stranger compared to about a third of the crimes committed by acquaintances and about Medical a fourth of those committed by stran attentiol'l 4296 47% 5196 gers. This may be the case because the Hospital definition of a crime may vary in the care 9 13 16 mind of the victim, depending on the Total number oC injured victim's relationshi!? to the offender. victims 707,800 2,020,000 For example, victims who are threat- 3,049,300
5 ~ " . i - '9' §elf-protection Table 8. SelC-proteetive mell.Sures employed by victi/llll o( violent crimes. by victfm-oCCe:ndcr relationship, 1982-84 Overa14 about 3 out of 4 violent crime victims did something to protect Percent of victimizations themselves during the crime incident Sell-protective measures Relative Acquaintance Stranger I (table 8). Methods of self-protection Tried to protect themselves 82% 79% i6% included fleelng from the offender, rea:- Used or brandished a gun, . soning with the assailant, trying to get knile, or other weapon 2 3 5 Used physical Coree 20 26 25 I help, using physical force, and using or Tried to get help or brandishing a weapon. Victims of a frighten oCCender 27 17 17 . stranger crime were less likely to pro Threatened, argued, or reasoned with oCCender 27 25 18 tect themselves than victims who knew Used nonviolent resistance, the assailant. including evasion 37 30 30
Th~ most frequently mentioned Notel Types or seIClIrotection add to more than total bec:ause victim method of self-defense (employed by I,lay have used more than one measure. nearly a third of the victims) was non violent resistance, which included lock Table 9. VIolent crime Incident3 reported to police, by ing a door, fleeing from the offender, victfm-olCender relationship, 1982-84 hiding, and shielding oneself. Non violent resistance was more frequently Perc:ent of Incidents used by victims of a crime committed Incident reported to pollce Relative Acquaintance Stranger by a relative than a crim·e by an ac Total 100% 100% 100% quaintance or stranger. Reported to pollce 53 40 47 Not reported 47 59 51 Victims of a violent crime by a rel Respondent not sure ... 1 1 ative were also more likely to try to Note: Percentages may not total to 100 because oC rounding. get help or frighten the offender than "Represents 10 or lewer sample cases; see Methodology section. victims of a. violent crime committad - Less than 0.5%. by an acquaintance or stranger. They were, however, less likely to use phys ical force. Victims of a crime by a Table 10. Moat Important re8.!lOll CIX" repor~ violent crime victimiza- relative or acquaintance more fre tions to the police, by victim-o!!ender relationship, 1982-84 quently tried to reason with or threaten Percent of victimizations the offender than did victims of a Reason lor reporting Relative Acquaintance Stranger crime by a stranger. Total 100% 100% 100% To stop or prevent this The least common method of self incident from heppening 28 21 14 protection for all violent crime victims To keep It from heppening was the use or display of a gun, knife, again or to athol'll 31 33 24 To collec:t insurance or to or other weapon. Victims confronted recover propc"rty 2· 3 9 by a stranger, however, were more Needed help aIter incident 4 3 3 likely to use or display a weapon (5%) There was evidence or proo! -. 1· 1· than were victims of crime by a rela To punish the ollender 7 14 14 tive (2%) or an acquaintance (3%). Respondent'iS duty/because it W8lI a crime 5 10 16 Other 16 9 13 Reporting crimes to the police Not a:scertained 6 G 8 Notol Perc:sntages may not total to 100 because of rounding. Less than half of all violent crimes -Represent3 10 or Cewer sample cases; see Methodology section. were reported to the police from 1982 - Less than 0.5%. through 1984 (table 9). Stranger-to stranger crimes were reported 47% of reported the crimes to the police and ances more often notified the police to the time. Crimes by relatives were discussed them with others. Those who seek punishment of the offender than most likely to be reported (53%), and have not done so may be more reluctant did victims of crimes by relatives. crimes by acquaintances were least to report them in a survey interview. likely (40%). or the victims who did not report Of those violent crime victims who the crime to the police, about <1 out of The higher police reporting rate for reported the crime to the police, about 10 victims of crimes by relatives or ac 'violent crimes by relatives shOUld, how lout of 3 victims of a nonstranger quaintances stated that the most im ever, be interpreted with caution. The crime and lout of 4 victims of a stran pOl·tant reason was because the incident true proportion of crimes by relatives ger crime stated that the most impor was a private or personal matter (table 'that are reported to the police is prob- tant reason for notifying the police was 11). The most common reason victims ably lower than the survey estimate. to keep the incident from happening of crime by a stranger gave for not I Those victims of crimes by relatives again, either to themselves or to others calling the police was because the inci who were willing to discuss their vic (table 10). Another common reason for dent was not important enough to war timization experiences possibly com reporting victimizations was to stop or rant police attention. prise a special group of domestic as prevent the incident from occurring, I sault victims. They may be more will such as when the police are called to ing to discuss their experiences with an prevent an imminent attack. Victims I interviewer because they have already of crimes by strangers and acquaint- ~ 6 t I; Methodology The findings in this report are pre sented in terms of victimizations and The data for this report were incidents. One criminal incident may obtained Crom the 1982-84 NatiQnal involve more than one victim. Between Crime Survey. An average sample of 1982 and 1984, there were an average 58,000 households and 123,000 indi of 1.17 victimizations per violent crime viduals were interviewed twice a year incident. Victim weights were used in about crimes-including those crimes generating crime level estimates, vic not reported to the police. Series tim characteristics, and offender char crimes (those representing three or acteristics. Incident weights were ap more incidents about which the victim plied fer estimating characteristics of could not provide detail on separate the crime itself (such as number of of events) were included in the counts as fenders and place of occurrence). one incident, each based on details of the most recent incident. Because the All comparisons presented in this survey population includes only persons report are statistically significant at age 12 and over, child abuse is insuf the 95 % confidence level or above. It ficiently measured and is therefore not is not possible to constrlJ,ct accur~te discussed in this report. confidence intervals around estimates based upon 10 or fewer sample cases Survey respondents who were vic because standard error formulas may tims of a violent crime were asked a not produce accurate values for such series of questions to determine their estimates. Therefore caution should be prior relationship with the offender. used when comparing estimates based Victims responded to questions based on upon 10 or fewer sample cases to other their perceptions of this relationship. small estimates. Victims alS.o provided information about their perceptions of the age, race" and sex of the offender(s).
With the exception of the tables on offender characteristics, the tables in this report combine both single- and multiple-offender crimes. When two or' more offenders were involved in a crime, the most intimate relationship wi th the victim was considered to re present the victim-offender relation ship. For example, if the victim re ported that a boyfriend and a stranger were involved in an incident, the rela tionship was considered to have in volved a boyfriend.
Table 11. Most Important reason Cor not reportlng violent crime vicUmizations to the police, by vietim-o!Cender relationship, 1982-84 Percent or victimizations Reason Cor not reporting itelatlve Acquamtance ~tranger Bureau of Justice Statistics Total 100% 100% 100% Special Reports are prepared Private or persona! matter 46 38 18 principally by BJS st~ff. This Not important enough 9 19 24 report was written by Anita D. Reported to someone else 5 14 10 F ear of repri~al 15 5 3 Tlmrots and Michael R. Rand, Police ...... ,Ild not want with statistical assistance by to be bothered 5 5 6 Gertrude Thomas. It was edited Police would be ineCrective, by Frank D. Balog under the ine£!lclent, and insensitive 7 2 5 Lack of proof, no ID number, supervision of Steven R. not aware crime occurred Schlesinger, direc tor. Marianne Wltillater -. 1 12 Zawitz provided assistance in data Object recovered, oUender presentation. Marilyn Marbrook, WlsuccessCul 1- Z 6 Too inconvenient or publications unit chief, admin tlma consuming I· 1 3 \ istered report production, assisted Other 10 10 11 _0 by Tina Dorsey, Jeanne Harris, Not ascertained 2 3 and Arlene F. James. Notel Perll8ntages may not total to 100 because ot rounding. -Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Methodology section. January 1987, NCJ-I037q2 - Less than 0.5%.
7