macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) (06/27/87)
In article <19484@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >In article <2255@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (45263-SEVENER,T.J.) writes: >>Jim's argument presumes a myth which is patently false and has been >>shown to be false repeatedly in studies of homicides and violent attacks- >>that myth is that most violent attacks come from some stranger who just >>attacked the victim out of the blue. In fact, most violent attacks come I have heard this many times over the years, and I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those who say so. Certaintly family members have the most opportunity. But there's one problem. I know a lot of people who have been damaged by "random attacks" or by near-strangers (several rapes, my cousin's murder), and I don't know of >any< family violence stories. I suspect that the majority - probably a slim majority - of violent crime is "homosocial" to inner city ethnic groups, and that another whole group of crime is "heterosocial", or crossing over between individuals that are strangers to each other. Sociologists must have identified some relation- ship like this (spare me flames that say, "Yeah, it's called racist Nazi fascism, asshole...") over the years.