Executive Summary
Global economic structures have altered the societal and social systems. Poverty has restricted financial benefit and accelerated unethical behavior in the United States and society. Sexual victimization has not been separated either, poverty has surged many women and underage girls to be victims of sexual victimizations than men.
The economic pressure existing among the poor women has increased sexual abuse because; Poverty compels women and girls to indulge in activities that entail a comparatively high possibility of sexual exploitation and victimization, mostly sex work. Besides, it establishes tremendous stresses such as; finding or keeping their jobs, pursuing trading interests, and obtaining better grades if they are studying. These activities make them vulnerable to sexual oppression from those who can guarantee these things. Thus, Poor women are also at risk of intimate partner violence, of which sexual victimization is often a symptom. Therefore, this paper aims at discovering a link between poverty and the rate of the vulnerability of women towards sexual victimization.
Introduction
Sex crimes are a constant problem in the United States. The statistic reveals that 7 million forcible rapes occur within the confines of intimate relations yearly (Payne & Gainey. 2005). Although this number is related to crime by an intimate partner, it is suggested the number will rise with other associated offender-type violations. According to Uniform Crime Report (UCR), it is noted that about 17,190 forcible rapes happened and this was about 9.6% of the crime rate per 100,000 populations in 1960. However, in 2009, 88,097 forcible rapes were reported and this was 28.7 of the crime rate per 100,000 populations. This suggests the percentage of forcible violations has been increasing in the United States over the years.
Rape and American Society
Rape victimization has been on the rise in the United States. Embracing the UCR assertions, rape by force comprised 93.0 percent of reported rape offenses whereas the rate of forcible rapes was estimated at 56.6 per 100,000 female inhabitants in 2009. Payne & Gainey (2005) also affirms that out of eight women one woman faces sexual assault during their lifetime. Payne & Gainey (2005) further suggests that more women are weak elements in society, therefore; this affirms their susceptibility to a sex crime.
Rape in America however, argues that sex crime has increased thus involving minors. According to data available from Rape in America studied in 1992, 61 % of victims of sex violations are minors. Kilpatrick, Edmonds, & Seymour (1992) assert that a dark figure of crime causes a lack of information about incidents and is a clear sign that sex crimes are one of the major challenging issues common in the United States. Sex crimes have adverse effects on a victim, and this ultimately affects his or her psychological health.
Effects of Sex Violence on a Victim
Effects of sex crimes include; fear, anxiety, self-esteem problems, contraction of sexual diseases, and sexual dysfunction among other effects (Koss, 1993). In suppressing the effects of trauma, rape victims often use drugs and alcohol to self-medicate their emotional trauma; this, however, is a short-term remedy that further causes other health problems (Schafran, 1996). According to Rape in America, 3.8 million women have had Rape-Related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and currently, 1.3 million live with the disorder (Koss, 1993). Hall, (1995) further shows that sexually transmitted disease is rather higher in rape victims. His study on sex crimes and STD transmission showed that at least one sexually transmitted disease (STD) at the initial emergency room assessment in 11 to 43 percent of rape victims is common.
The consequences of sexual violation are even more serious when children are the victims because of their innocence. Estimates suggest that one-third of children will suffer sexual abuse, anger, and denial (Payne & Gainey, 2005). Because sex crimes are considered taboo, children are suppressed to severe emotional stress and tensions such as; fear, guilt, shame, and loss of self-esteem (DeFrancis, 1971). In addition, it becomes more vulnerable for a child especially when an offender is an incest. This is because the incest person if for example is a family member has easy access to the victim. This has a potential psychological effect on a child and can lead to a child developing schizophrenia (DeFrancis, 1971). There are also other likely risks that sex crimes affect the subject’s future behavior.
According to McCauley et al (1997), 50.4 % of those who reported having been abused in childhood also reported being abused in adulthood. They also suggest that women abused in childhood were less likely to get married than women who have no such an experience (McCauley et al, 1997). There are also other problems as well. Some adults who were subjected to sexual abuse in their childhood think that it restricts normal functioning in fairly predictable ways such as; lowered self-esteem, sexual dysfunction, parenting problems, intimacy problems, and forms of self-abuse. Moreover, some women who have been abused in childhood perpetuate the severity of their childhood by committing a crime.
Smith et al (1982) support the latter argument by suggesting that abuse victims are more likely to have arrest records and adult convictions in comparison to the subjects. Everyone can be subject to sexual victimization. However, Riger et al (1981) suggest that fears which a woman’s attitude about crime are not randomly spread. He further suggests that women with the fewest resources to cope with victimization such as; the elderly, ethnic minorities, and those with low incomes are susceptible to a higher percentage of fear. Therefore, in this research, I believe that people in lower-income circles are more likely to be victims than equivalent.
Kornhauser in his 1978 theory of “community control” model from Shaw and McKay’s conjecture argued about “social disorganization”. One reason for Shaw and McKay’s theory was about people who are poor and live in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. She argued that these people have a challenge of fixing and upholding the traditional social relationship within themselves and in society.
Vold & Snipes (2001) and Kelly (2000) also argue about inequality and social disorganization theory that social disorganization theory asserts that a crime occurs when the mechanisms of social control are wakened. She makes examples of reasons that undermine a community’s ability to manage its members. The reasons she asserts are; poverty, racial diversity, residential mobility, and family instability (Kelly, 2002). Therefore, by applying social disorganization theory, women in a poor family could have a higher rate of victimization on sex crimes compared with economically empowered women in stable families. This simply suggests that as more people become poor in the United States, a wider gap in social inequality will still increase the United States. Thus, more women will become vulnerable to sexual victimization.
Income Variation and Sex Violence
According to U.S. Census Bureau, comparing the change in household income between 1999 and 2009, we can deduce that income inequality is increasing. In addition, it shows the disparity existing in racial minorities i.e. median income declined for Black households and Non-Hispanic White households between 2008 and 2009. It also suggests the income inequality on the level of education and households with lower levels of education were more likely to remain in or move into a lower income quintile than households whose householders had higher levels of education.
DeNavas-Walt et al (2010) U.S. Census Bureau define poverty as “if a family’s gross income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it are considered to live in poverty” Therefore, the poverty rate shows the proportion of people with income below the appropriate poverty threshold. 43.6 million people are in poverty in the United States in 2009. Moreover, this poverty rate increased between 2008 and 2009. The official poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent up from 13.2 percent in 2008 and this was the highest poverty rate since 1994 (DeNavas-Walt et al, 2010).
United States Economy and Sex Violence
Social disorganization theory as mentioned earlier in the paper would predict that poor women are more likely to be victims of a sex crime. The problem of poverty can be aligned to the deterioration of the United States economy. When a nation’s economy is weak, there is no employment, government support, and better living standards. This directly affects the population and mostly women. Thus, clearly rate of sexual victimization will respond by the level of income status of people. It can be affirmed that less stability in income for women creates more chances of sexual victimization.
It is, therefore, necessary to clarify these factors through an empirical study. If this thesis finds a relationship between poverty and sexual crime, the outcomes of this study will not only shed light on the clear characteristic of sexual victims but will also allow for better prediction of target resources to officials. This study tries not only to examine sexual victimization as an individual character but also to study the victim’s environment such as economic condition; and how it influences women to be more vulnerable to sexual victimization. Thus, the pertinent questions in this study are;
- Are there any factors that make women experience sexual victimization differently?
- Who are the people most likely to fall victim to a sex crime?
- Does this kind of factor either increase or reduce women being sexually victimized?
- Is there another type of crime affected by women’s changed environment (neighborhood)?
- Is there differences in women’s response to outrage depending on women’s economic situation?
By clearly mapping out the differences of women’s experiences in crime, and studying women’s economic conditions, this study will achieve the double benefit of understanding sexual victimization from an economical point of view and offering a possible solution to mitigate such sex crime in the future. In today’s social and political environment where sexual crime is viewed not only as an individual problem but also as shared responsibility extending to the various level of community (neighborhood) services, the community needs to preserve a good environment. However, it is more important the community service (neighborhood environment) be based on a credibly environmental basis rather than a manufactured façade of the environment.
Thus, the relevance of this study is an in-depth exploration of the basis rather than the outcome of sexual victimization. The study will revolve around analyzing data of 8,000 women aged 18 years residing in households throughout the United States. This assessment aim at describing sexual crime against women on behalf; National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly sponsored by the National Violence against Women (NVAW) in 2000 which was aimed at exploring women’s fear, physical and emotional experiences on crime. (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1999) The NIJ is a government agency that is mandated to research issues surrounding crime and administering justice.
The research proposal seeks, most importantly, to find a relationship between poverty and sexual victimization. The survey was carried out through questionnaires. Questionnaires prepared were customized to align with study objectives and to achieve suitable results.
Theories Relevant to This Research
Shaw and Mckay’s theory, which is the basis of this research, held that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility led to disrupting community social organization, which in turn accounted for variations in crime and delinquency rates. Sampson (2005) asserts that income inequality and poor economic conditions lead to social disorganization through a breakdown of social cohesion. Kennedy et al (1998) model explains neighborhood effects called the “contagion model”. In this model, it is suggested that children who grow up in a community where many of their neighbors commit crimes, the children will be more likely to do these things themselves.
Mayer & Jencks, (1989) also confirms this point by alluding the neighborhood environment is an important aspect of every individual therefore what happens around him has direct outcomes of influencing his or her behavior. According to Hseih and Pugh (1993) who examined the relationship between poverty, income inequality, and violent crime, there are two sets of views justifying the rate of homicide rate as; micro and macro. At the micro level’s view, resource divestiture causes frustration and thus results in; diffuse aggression and violent aggression. This can therefore mean that murder can be described as an individual’s response to resource divestiture. At the macro level, however, the differences in the homicide rate are a result of differences in-group composition.
Hseih and Pugh’s (1993) Views on crime rates at a macro level are useful for my research since I will examine the differences in sexual victimization rates as dependent on income differences. Various past studies have fixed a relationship between neighborhood context and crimes. However, the researchers’ opinion on this relationship is still controversial. Past researchers suggesting the existence of this relationship recommend that variations in the spatial distribution of crime are associated with the level of poverty characterizing an area. Pattersson (1991) and other researchers seem to agree on the link between income inequality and crime.
Although these researchers agree on the existence of such a relationship, they have sometimes differed in opinion. First, let us reflect on the past studies to recognize the effect of income and poverty inequality on crime. Petterson (1991) discovered there is a correlation between household burglary rate and economic conditions. His study examined the relationship between crime rates and total economic conditions for 57 small social areas. He examines income inequality explaining criminal activity across social areas and confirmed that poverty and income are significantly associated with higher rates of serious violent crime.
Petterson (1991) asserts the situation of violence is more predominant in social areas that have greater levels of absolute poverty than in areas with less poverty level. In addition, Hseih and Pugh (1993) also point out that the violent crime rate is a result of poverty and income inequality among the population. They illustrated that resource divestiture is an underlying cause of violent crime and poverty, and income inequality is an indicator of resource deprivation.
Hseih and Pugh (1993) however differ from Patterson and Hseih & Pugh on how they view crimes. Whereas Hseih and Pugh classified types of crime and distinguished their strength and impacts on society, Patterson concentrated on connection to criminal activities across social areas. However, they all implied that homicide and violence might be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than rape and robbery.
Kennedy et al (1998) echo the same reasoning, they conducted a study to examine the relationship between inequality and homicide rate. They found out that neighborhoods showed a greater disparity in income and a higher rate of homicide at the state level. Other researchers, however, recognize other factors that contribute to crime rates other than income inequality and poverty. They argue that income inequality and poverty are not the only factors causing differences in the percentage of crimes. Their augment is that race should come with income inequality when we talk about different crime rates.
Blau and Blau (1982) assert that poverty has little connection with the homicide, forcible rape, or aggravated assault rates. They describe the factors most strongly associated with increased crime rates as racial and income inequality. In their study, they discovered that blacks are mostly affected by race. Hence, we can affirm that socioeconomic disparity between races increases rates of criminal violence with economic inequality itself.
Blau and Blau (1982) and McGabey (1986) also claim about the relationship between racial socioeconomic and crime saying that another generation, urban dwellers are more prone to crime. He insists that if their parents cannot provide them with income, then their choice is a crime and employment. However, since it is difficult to get a job for young people, this usually means crime is the only option they can choose to sustain themselves (McGabey, 1986).
Another study by Quillian and Pager (2001) suggests the socioeconomic disparity between races and crime is about the opinion that people have on other races. For example, people have a negative view of black neighborhoods. Quillian and Pager (2001) suggest the percentage of young black men in a neighborhood is associated with perceptions of the crime in the neighborhood. They underline the sensitivity of neighborhood crime as the idea that certainly makes reconciliation between actual neighborhood crime and the decision to move (Quillian & Pager, 2001).
Blau and Blau (1982) also reveal there is a positive relationship between the percentage of the population of young black men age 12-29 and perceptions of a neighborhood’s crime problem. However, Blau and Blau (1982) discovered that White systemically overestimates the extent to which percentage black and neighborhood crime rates are associated. It means that this overestimated thought could affect genuine black neighborhoods and it makes it difficult to reconcile actual neighborhood crimes in the black community (Quillian & Pager, 2001). It might be confusing, therefore, to explicitly identify factors that influence factors encouraging crime rates.
Factors Encouraging Sex Violence
There are various studies done outlining factors that encourage sex violence. The race is one of the suggested factors. Explaining the impact of race on crime rates is evident because there is a higher chance of income disparity. DeMaris (1990) suggests the higher likelihood of violence reported by black is a social class effect since blacks in the sample were more likely to report lower parental income and education, and these variables, in turn, were negatively related to violence (DeMaris, 1990). In other words, DeMaris insists that low-income youth are more vulnerable to violence.
West and Rose (2000) when investigating low-income African-American youth also support the same idea of DeMaris above. They find out that 46% to 67and of the low-income African-American youth studied reported physical dating aggression violence such as sexual coercion, including forced kissing, touching, pressure to have sex, attempted rape, and completed rape They see the results as indicators showing African-American’s greater risk for partner violence because of their marginalized socioeconomic status (West & Rose, 2000). Of course, there is another reason that leads to different forms of crime apart from income inequality.
While Blau and Blau present economic inequality and socioeconomic inequality between races as factors increasing crime rates, Krahn et al (1986) recognize that the connection between income inequality and homicide rates might be reduced when appropriate control variables are introduced (Krahn et al, 1986).
Other factors encouraging crime have been associated with population growth. Krahn et al, (1986) suggest that a higher proportion of young people causes rapid population growth and therefore this can be the source of increasing homicide rates. They concluded that younger people are prone to committing homicide than older people. In addition, countries, where a larger proportion of youth are enrolled in school, have lower rates of homicide meaning that since school enrollment rates are lower in poor countries than in wealthier countries, both income inequality and population affect homicide crime rates.
Krahn et al, (1986) as discussed from past studies, assert that income inequality and crime rates are related and reveal that income inequality and crime rates are significantly related. Thus, it is time to see the reason why income inequality and crime rates are related. According to Wilkinson (1997), the objective income inequality is related to crime rates seems to reduce social divisions, by decreasing social cohesion (Wilkinson, 1997) Same as Wilkinson (1997), Kennedy et al (1998) conclude the reason why income inequality are useful predictors of homicide and violent crimes as suggesting that it decreasing social capital. Kennedy et al, (1998) Moreover, there is a study that shows different levels of resources depending on economic conditions.
Categories of Crime
Bynum et al (1982) categorize traits of a crime victim as physical and situational. Situational factors are the one have to do with conditions and relationships surrounding the victim (Bynum et al, 1982). In this research, this condition surrounding the victim might be income inequality. In the study, they found that victims from higher-economic areas of the city were more likely to receive favorable investigative analysis. (Bynum et al, 1982) These studies interlocking with the idea above that woman who has the fewest resources to manage victimization and those with low incomes carry the heaviest burden of fear (Riger & Golden, 1981) because the fewest resources could be the same definition of lack of social capital.
Peterson (1980) also agrees lower class shows different crime rates but views the reason somehow differently. He suggests that the lower class has different criteria compared with middle or upper classes such as the lower class defining violence as a legitimate response to stress. Therefore, he insists that lower-class member who accepts this kind of pattern become violent under pressure. (Peterson, 1980) All these researches suggest that women in low income are more vulnerable to victimization than their counterparts.
Therefore, sex crimes cannot be an exception. It is advisable to state that only a small percentage of violent crime is related to a sex crime. For example, in 2009, there were 88.097 out of 1,318,398 violent crimes and this indicates only 6.68 percent of sex crimes (UCR, 2009). However, it is also wise to say that even such a small portion is cause for concern; this is because of the kind of effects of sexual crime. In addition, the media attention those occurring sex crimes have a detrimental effect on making fear of crimes.
The statistic says that per capita rates of rape or sexual assault were found to be highest among residents aged 16 to 19, low-income residents, and urban residents in 1994 (Greenfeld, 1997). Income inequality is also significantly associated with an increase in reporting intimate partner violence such as forced sex (Coker et al, 2000). Peterson (1980) suggests that social class does affect the incidence of wife abuse because he finds that most wife-abuse victims are lower class.
The fact that eighty-nine percent of the abused women in his sample are from low-income families which income is less than &10,000 annually supports his assertion that woman abuse appears to be associated with the family’s having lower-class status (Peterson, 1980). However, income inequality and poverty, which help to fix the extent of violent crime, have been neglected in the current policy debate (Kennedy et al, 1998). Kennedy (1998) says that income inequality is the measure of relative deprivation. In this case, sex crimes are the importance of an individual’s response to resources deprivation, subsequent personal frustration (Kennedy, 1998). It all explains what I want to examine; the relationship between income inequality and sexual victimization.
Conclusion
The economic situation of women as adduced from the research is one of the reasons causing sexual exploitation among women in the United States. Although most literature points to this important factor, other factors such as race, government involvement, economic status, and education level contribute to widespread sexual violence.
Reference List
Blau, J. & P.M. Blau. (1982). “The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime.” American Sociological Review, 47, 114-129.
Bynum, T., Cordner, G.W., & Greene, J.R. (1982). “Victim and Offense Characteristics: Impact on Police Investigative Decision-Making”. Criminology, 20(3), 301-318.
Coker, A.L., Derrick, C., Lumpkin, J. L., Aldrich, T.E., & Oldendick, R. (2000). “Help-Seeking For Intimate Partner Violence zAnd Forced Sex in South Carolina”. American journal of preventive medicine, 19(4), 316-320.
DeFrancis, V. (1971). “Protecting the Child Victim of Sex Crimes Committed by Adults”. Federal Probation, 35 (3), 15-20.
DeMaris, A. (1990). “The Dynamics of Generational Transfer in Courtship Violence: A Viracial Exploration”. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52(1), 219-231.
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B.D. & Smith, J.C. (2010). Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. New York: U.S. Department Of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU.
Greenfeld, L.A. (1997). Sex Offenses and Offenders: An Analysis of Data on Rape and Sexual Assault. Pennsylvania: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hall, R. (1995). Rape in America. California: ABC-CLIO.
Hsieh, C. & Pugh, M.D. (1993). “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies”. Criminal Justice Review, 18 (2), 182-202.
Kelly, M. (2000). “Inequality and Crime”. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530-539.
Kennedy, B.P., Kawachi, I., Prothrow-Stith, D., Lochner, K. & Gupta, V. (1998). “Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Firearm Violent Crime”. Social Science & Medicine, 47(1). 7-17.
Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N. & Seymour, A. K. (1992). Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington: National Victim Center & Medical University of South Carolina.
Koss, M.P. (1993). “Rape: Scope, Impact, Interventions, and Public Policy”. American Psychological Association, 48, 1062-1069.
Krahn, H., Hartnagel, T.F. & Gartrell. J.W. (1986). “Income Inequality and Homicide Rates: Cross-National data and Criminological Theories”. Criminology, 24(2), 269-295.
Mayer, S. E. & Jencks, C. (1989). “Growing Up In Poor Neighborhoods: How Much Does It Matter?” Science, New Series, 243(4897), 1441-1445.
McCauley. J., Kern D.E., Kolodner K, et al. (1997). “Clinical Characteristics of Women with a History of Childhood Abuse: Unhealed Wounds”. JAMA, 277(17), 1362- 1368.
McGabey, R.M. (1982). “Economic Conditions, Neighborhood Organization, and Urban Crime”. Crime & Justice, 8, 231-269.
Patterson, E. B. (1991). “Poverty, Income Inequality, and Community Crime Rate”. Criminology, 29(4), 755-776.
Payne, B.K. & Gainey, R.R. (2005). Family Violence & Criminal Justice: A Life-Course Approach. 2nd Ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Peterson, R. (1980). “Social Class, Social Learning, and Wife Abuse”. The Social Service Review, 54(3), 390-406.
Quillian & Pager. (2001). “Black Neighbors, Higher Crime? The Role of Racial Stereotypes in Evaluations of Neighborhood Crime”. American Journal of Sociology, 107 (3), 717-767. Web.
Riger, S. & Gordeon, M.T. (1998). “The Fear of Rape: A Study in Social Control”. Journal of Social Issue, 37(4), 71-92.
Sampson, R.J. (2005). “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality”. Crime and Justice, 3 (3), 36-54.
Schafran. L. H. (1996). “Topics for our times: Rape is a Major Public Health Issue”. American Journal of Public Health, 86(1), 1-5.
Smith, P., Bohnstedt, M. & Grove, K. (1982). Long-Term Correlates of Child Victimization: Consequences of Intervention and Non-Intervention. New York: American Justice Institute.
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1999). Violence and Threats of Violence against Women and Men in the United States, 1994-1996. Web.
Uniform Crime Report. (2009). Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Vold, B. G., Bernard, J. T. & Snipes, B. J. (2001). Theoretical Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
West, C.M. & Rose, S. (2000). “Dating Aggression among Low Income African American Youth: An Examination of Gender Differences and Antagonistic Beliefs”. Violence against Women, 6,470-494.
Wilkinson, R. G. (1997). “Socioeconomic Determinants of Health: Health Inequalities: Relative or Absolute Material Standards?” British Medical Journal.314, 591-599.