u.s. Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

4 m 

Bureau of Justice S.tatistics 

.. ,Speci~r ·Report": ',; :', '. • • ". - ',_ . , '., I 

.~<. , ; \ ' 

~ 

. ,. . 

, ,Y ,::" '/ -,,;,~' ., .J..' .. ' . 

. :'; ..) .L,.:t· ( 

:- .:,~ ...., . "'. ~ ..... 

Violent Crime by Strangers 

and N on strangers 

By Anita D. Timrots 

and 

Michael R. Rand 

BJS Statisticians 

Results from the National Crime Survey (NCS) indicate that between 1982 

and 1984 less than half of all violent 

crimes were committed by total strangers. Another 11 % of the violent 

crimes were committed by persons 

known to the victim by sight only. An 

additional 31 % were committed by acquaintances and friends, and 8%, by relatives. Other findings include: 

o Among violent crimes, robbery was 

most likely to be committed by a stranger; homicide, least likely. 

• Most violent crimes by strangers 

(70%) were committed against males; 

most crimes by relatives (77%) were 

committed against females. 

., Spouses or ex-spouses committed over 

half of aU crimes by relatives and about 

two-thirds of all crimes by relatives 

against women. 

• Crimes by strangers were more often 

committed by two or more offenders 

than were crimes by nonstrangers. 

• Stranger-to-stranger crimes more 

often involved a weapon but less often 

resulted in an attack than nonstranger 

crimes. Crimes by relatives involved 

an attack and injury more often than 

crimes by either strangers or acquaintances. . 

• Of those injured, victims of stranger 

crimes and victims of crimes by acquaintances were more likely to require 

January 1987 

It is often said that the fear of 

crime is largely a fear of strangers. As this Special Report 

indicates, while almost half of all 

violent crimes are committed by 

total strangers, almost 40% occur 

among friends, acquaintances, or 

relatives, including spouses or exspouses. This report, based upon 

data from the National Crime 

Survey for 1982 through 1.984, expands our knowledge of the nature 

and extent of crime by strangers 

and by nonstrangers. It can assist 

policy makers as they seek to (;;ontrol not only "street crimell but 

also the violence among friends, 

neighbors, and family members 

that disrupts the lives of so man:, 

of our citizens. 

Steven R. Schlesinger 

Director 

medical attention than victims of 

crimes committed by relatives. 

Introduction 

Although crime is often discuS3ed 

as a single entity, crimes committed by 

strangers differ in many ways from 

crimes commi tted by nonstrangers. 

This report highlights some of the differences in the characteristics of the 

vit~tims, the offenders, and the crimes 

themselves. 

'Por this report, three basic victimoffender relationships were examined: 

stranger-to-stranger crimes, crimes 

committed by friends or acquaintances, 

and crimes committed by relatives. 

Crimes by strangers refer to those 

committ.::c by total strangers, in which 

the assailant was completely unknown 

to the victim, and to those in whicp the 

assailant was known only by sight. 

Nonstranger crimes refer to those committed by friends, acquaintances, or 

relatives. 

Past stUdies and evidence from the 

NCS indicate that violence involving 

nonstrangers, particularly relatives,.., 

may be underreported in the survey. '" 

Individuals victimized by relatives may 

be reluctant to discuss the event, especially if the offender is present at the 

in terview, for fear of reprisal or out of 

shame or embarrassment. Further, 

some victims of domestic violence may 

not perceive these acts as criminal. 

Consequently, the results reported here 

may underestimate crimes by i'ersons 

known to the victim and therefore 

overestimate the proportion of crimes 

committed by strangers. 

Victfm-ofIender relationship 

O[ thg violent crimes m~asured by 

the NCS-rape, robbery, and assault46% wel'e committed by total stran-

-gel's. Another 11% were CQmmitted by 

persons known to the victim by sight 

only; 31 % were committed by acquainlOCCenders were considered to be known "by sight 

only" It the victim never said more than hello to the 

oefender. 

2 A 1971 reverse records check in San Jose found 

that known victims oC violent crime by a relative 

reported the Incident to a survey interviewer only 

22'16 oC the time. Crimes by acquaintances were reported 58'16 oC tile time; crimes by strangers, 75'16 

ot the time. See also Surveying Crime, National 

Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1976. 
tances and friends; and 8%, by relatives. Spouses or ex-spouses were involved in 5% of all violent crimes (table 

1). 

The typical relationship between 

the victim and offender varied by the 

·type of crime. Of the violent crimes 

measured by the NCS between 1982 ano 

1984, robbery was most likely to be 

.committed by a stranger. Seventy-one 

perc:ent of robberies were committed 

by total strangers. Simple assault was 

least often committed by a total stranger (39%). Thirty-six percent 01 simple 

assaults were committed by friends and 

acquaintances. About 996 were committed by relatives, more than half of 

which involved spouses or ex-spouses. 

Of the violent crimes included in 

the FBrs Uniform Crime Reports~..bomicide was least likely to be committed" 

'by !'strn~r. -nl r384, 18% of homi-

-Uldes Wel'e r<nown to be committed by a 

-stranger, compared to 75% of robberies 

in that year. 

Vlctlm-oCCender 

:elationshlp Homicide Robbery 

Stranger 18% 

Acquaintance 39 

Relative 18 

Unknown 26 

Total 100 

Note: Percentages may not total 

to 100 because of rounding. 

75% 

17 

4 

4 

100 

Sources: FBI UniCor"; Crime Reports, 

1984; National Crime Survey, 1984. 

Table 1. Victim-ocrender relationship till: selected violent crimes, 1982-84 . Violent A., ':1;-

Victim-oCCender crime vr d Simple 

relationship total Rape Robbery .• ' .<lult assault 

Percent oC victimizations 

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Nonstranger- 39% 40% 20'16 39% 46% 

Relative 3 4 4 7 9 

Spouse 3 1· 1 3 4 Ex~pouse 2 I· 1 1 2 

Parent - 1- ... 1 - Child - ... .... - - Brother/sister 1 ... 1 1 1 

Other relative 2 2· 1 1 2 

Acquaintance 31 35 15 30 36 

Boyfriend/ex-boyfriend 3 7 2 3 3 

Girlfriend/ex-girlfriend 1 ... - 1 1 

Friend/ex-friend S 6 3 7 7 

Other person weU-known 

not related S 6 2 6 8 

Casual acquaintance 14 16 7 14 16 

Stl"anger 57% 55% 7796 56% 52% 

Completely unknown 46 49 71 44 39 

Known by sight only 11 7 6 12 13 

Relationship not ascel'tained 396 4% 3% 5% 2% 

Number at victimizations 

Total 19,999,000 504,000 3,715,300 5,289,600 10,490,200 

Nonstranger- 7,879,500 202,700 743,800 2,032,100 4,851,000 

Relative 1,502,400 21,200 148,200 389,900 943,200 

Spouse 574,200 4,400· 46,500 153,400 369,900 Ex~pouse 322,600 5,600· 41,200 72,500 203,300 

Parent 91,500 2,600- 13,800· 35,600 39,500 

Child 52,900 0- 6,300" 21,500 25,100 

Brother/sister 157,900 O· 20,100 34,500 103,300 

Other relative 303,000 8,700- 20,200 72,300 202,100 

Acquaintance 6,114,000 174,200 562,900 1,610,300 3,766,600 

BoyCrlend/ex-boyfrlend 638,300 3:1,700 86,600 152,900 365,100 

GirUriend/ex-girICriend 193,100 1,500· 17,300 52,800 121,500 

Friend/ex-friend 1,283,100 29,500 126,40(1 344,900 782,200 

Other person well-known . not related 1,197,600 29,300 67,800 306,400 794,100 

Casual acquaintance 2,80%,000 80,200 264,700 753,500 1,703,600 

Stranger 11,488,000 279,100 2,847,800 2,952,100 5,409,000 

Completely unknown 9,291,400 245,300 2,629,800 2,333,900 4,082,500 

Known by sight only 2,196,600 33,800 218,000 618,300 1,326,500 

Relationship not ascertained 631,600 22,200 123,800 255,400 230,300 

Note: Detail may not add to total because ot rounding. 

-Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Methodology section. 

··Nonstranger totals InclUde crimes for which detailed relationship 

was not.ascertained. 

-Less than 0.5%. 

2 

I 

Victim characteristics 

Sex and marital status 

Victims of violent crimes by strangers were predominantly male (70%), 

while the majority oC the victims of 

violent crimes by relatives were Cemale 

(77%). Of the victims of crimes by acquaintances, slightly more than half 

were male (table 2). 

The victims of violent crimes by 

both strangers and a~quaintnnces were 

more likely to have never been married 

than to be married, divorced, separated, or widowed. More than half of the 

male victims and almost half of the female victims of crimes by s',rangers had 

never married. Among betn males and 

femrues, crimes involving acquaintances were committed mostly against 

persons who had never been married. 

SpollSes or ex-spolJses committed 

two-thirds of the violent crimes by relatives against women. More than half 

oC the crimes by relatives against women were reported to the survey by women who were divorced or separate.d at 

the time of the interview. Another 

fOr.1rt~ were reported by married women. Of the male victims of crimes 

by relatives about a fourth were separated or divorced. Almost 4 in 10, however, were married. 

Race 

The race of victims varied only 

slightly by the victim-offender relationship. The proportion of violent 

crimes committed against whites was 

higher for crimes by relatives (88%) 

than for crimes by either acquaintances 

(83%) or strangers (84%). The proportion of violent crimes committed 

against blacks was higher Cor crimes by 

acquaintances (1696) than Cor crimes by 

strangers (14%) or relatives (10%). 

Violent crime is predominantly targeted against younger persons; the 

average age oC violent crime victims 

between 1982 and 1984 was 27. The 

age profile of victims, however, varied 

by the victim-offender l"elationship. 

The average age of victims was 

lower for crimes by acquaintances (25) 

than Cor crimes by relatives (30) or 

strangers (28). This lower age distripution was due, in part, to the large number of violent crimes occurring in 

3Crimes against married women, however, are 

prClbably underreported to a lerger extent than 

crimes against separated or dlvorctld women. See 

paml1r Vlolanct!, BJS Special Report, NCJ-93449, 

April 984. 
sr!hools. Also, more than half of the 

victims of crimes by acquaintances had 

never been married. In contrast to this, 

the average age o!victims of crimes by 

relatives was higher largely because 

these crimes predominantly involved 

spouses or ex-spouses. 

'!'he average age of stranger-tostranger ct'ime victims was only slightly 

r.. *m 

higher than the average for all violent 

crime victims. More than three-fourths 

of the victims of a violent crime by a 

stranger were under age 35. About 3% 

were age 65 or older. 

Residence 

Violent crimes committed by strangers were most likely to have been 

Table 2. Violent c:ime victimizations, by victim characteristics 

and victim-oC!ender relationship, 1982-84 

Victim-oCCender relntior.shi~ 

Victim characteristics Relative Acquaintance Stranger 

Percent oC victimizations 

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 

committed against city dwellers, followed closely by suburbanites. Violent 

crimes by relatives were least often 

committed against city dwellers. Victims of crimes by relatiVes resided 

mostly in suburban areas, followed 

closely by rural areas. The highest percentage of victims of violent crimes by 

acquaintances lived in suburban areas. 

Residence 

oC victim 

City 

Suburban area 

Rural area 

Total 

Percellt oC victimizations 

AcquainRela ti ve tance Stranger 

26% 33% 

39 37 

35 30 

100 100 

43% 

39 

18 

100 
- • 

Offender characteristics . Table 3. Violent crime v\ctimizations, by vlcUm-1l{tender 

Violent crimes against most victims-whether male or female-were 

committed by male offenders (table 

relatiOi13ltip and sex ot vl~tim and oCCender, 1982-'114 

Percent or victimizations b:i sex of victimgnd otrender 

Male victim female victim 

Ylctim-oCrender Male Female -- Male Female 

rel.ltionship Total olCender oCfender Total offender offender 

Strange: :00% 91% 3% 100% 81% 18% 

Acquaintance ~OO 93 1 100 67 33 

• Relative 100 65 35 100 93 7 

3). Males were most likely to be vi<:-

"timized by a male in a stranger-tostranger confrontation (9796) and least 

likely in a confrontation involving a l'el-

,ative (6596). Females, however, were 

most often victimized by a male in a 

crime by a relative (9396) and least often when the crime involved an acquaintance (6796). 

Note: Table inr.lucies only victimizations committed by one oUender. 

Total Includes victlmi::ations Cor which victims could not ascertain the oerender's sex. 

Most violent crimes involved victims and offenders 01 the same race - (table 4). Crimes by strangers were 

more interracial, however, than crimes 

involving acquaintances or relatives. 

White victims were assaulted by white 

offenders in 7096 of stranger-to-stranger crimes, 86% of acquaintance 

crimes, and 9596 of crimes involving 

relatives. Black victims were assaulted 

by black offenders in 7796 of strangerto-stranger crimes, 9196 of acquaintance crimes, and 95% of crimes by relatives. 

Regardless of the victim's relationship with the offendert people were 

most likely to be victimized by an offender in the same age group as themselves (table 5). For example, 77% of 

violent crimes by relatives against persons age 30 or older involved offenders 

age 30 or older.4 These were mostly 

domestic crimes. Seventy-three percent of crimes by acquaintances against 

victims between ages 12 and 17 were 

committed by offenders under age 18. 

Stranger-to-stranger crimes were a 

little less likely to involve individuals 

of the same age group. For example, 

4396 of the ofKenders in stranger-tostranger crimes against victims 30 and 

older were in the same age group, while 

4896 were between ages 18 and 29. 

4The age groupings used for these comparisons were 

constrained by victims' abilities to estimate the 

ages of their 8S!Iallants. The three oCCender age 

groups roughly correspond to teenngers, young 

adults, and older adults. It Willi !elt that victims 

would be better able to place their oCeenders into 

such age groupings than to eccura tely guess their 

exact ages. The Gges of victims were grouped to 

match those Cor oiCenders. 

Table 4. Violent crime victimizations, by victim~Uender 

relationship and race of victim IUId oC!ender, 1982-304 

NUmber of offenders 

Crimes by strangers involved multiple offenders more often than did 

crimes by acquaintances or relatives. 

About a third of the stranger-to-stranger incidents involved multiple offenders. Among these incidents, 5496 of 

robberies, 2996 of assaults, and 16% of 

rapes involved more than one assailant. 

One oleender 

Two or more 

Total 

Percent oC incidents 

AcquainRelative tance Stranger 

93% 

7 

100 

84% 

16 

100 

65% 

35 

100 

Victim- White victim 

Percent or victimizations b:l race oC vic~m and offender 

Black victim 

offender White Black Other race White 

relationship Total offender offender offender Total offender 

Stranger 100% 70% 24% 4% 100% 19% 

Acquaintance 100 86 10 4 100 8 

Relative 100 95 2 2 100 5C1 

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%. 

Other race victim 

Black Other race White Black Other race oCfender oUender Total offender o!!ender o!!ender 

71% 3% 100% 46'>6 36% 13% 

91 ... 100 52 4- 44 

95 ... 100 41- -* ~3· 

.....J 

~-----------------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------~ Table 5. Violent crime victimizations, by victim-1lCtender 

relationship and age or victim and oUender, 1982-84 

VlctimoCrender 

relationship 

Percent oC victimizations bx,.age ol victim and ofCender ----cvTric:::t:r.i:="'l1'l'1"2'-'-1r::;7r":y::':e:":ars'=-"0~l:':!"a--"':";::';:'" Victim 18-29 :ieers old Victim 30 :leBrs old and older 

Ortender OCCender Offender OCCender Offender Ofrender Ofrender Otfender o (!ender 

Total under 18 18-29 30+ Total under 18 18-29 30+ Total WIder 18 18 .. 29 30+ 

Stranger 

Acquaintance 

Relative 

10096 

100 

100 

50% 

73 

IS"' 

36% 

20 

21 

12% 

7 

64 

100% 

100 

100 

696 

6 

3 

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 . 

6596 

66 

66 

21% 

21 

31 

10096 

100 

100 

696 

7 

4 

48% 

33 

;'8 

4396 

58 

77 
Incident characteristics 

Time and place of occurrence 

About half of all violent .:!rimes occurred during the day (between 6 a.m. 

and 6 p.m.). This proportion did not 

differ substantiallY for the three victim-offender relationships (table 6). 

A little more than half of the crimes 

. by acquaintances (56%) and a little less 

than half of the crimes by strangers 

(4.4%) occurred during the daytime. 

About half of the crimes involving relatives occurred during this time period 

(49%). 

Crimes involving relatives and acquaintances most often occurred in or 

near the victim'S home (69% and 32%), 

while crimes by strangers most often 

occurred on the street (39%). About 

4% of stranger-to-stranger incidents 

occurred inside the victim's home, compared to 18% of crimes by acquaintances and 58% of crimes by relatives. A 

higher percentage of violent crimes by 

acquaintances than crimes by relatives 

or strangers occurred in school or on 

school property. 

Level of violence 

In general, a weapon was more likely to be present in stranger crimes than 

in crimes committed by nonstrangers. 

Offel/ders had a weapon in a fourth of 

the !Ionstranger crimes compared to 

over a third of the stranger crimes. 

Pel'<:ent of victimizations 

WII!! a w Japan Acquainpre~ent? Relative tance Stranerer 

Yes 

No 

Don't know 

Total 

2696 

71 

4 

100 

26% 

70 

4 

100 

N'ote: Percentages may not total to 

100 bflcause oC rounding. 

36% 

54 

10 

100 

Violent crimes by nonstrangers, 

however, were more likely than crimes 

by strangers to involve an attack (table 

7). Among nonstranger crimes, those 

committed by relatives involved an 

attack more often than those t!ommitted by acquaintances. 

Violent crimes by relatives also involved injury more often than crimes by 

either acquaintances or strangers. 

Close to half of all victimizations involving a relative resulted in injury 

compared to about a third of the crimes 

committed by acquaintances and about 

a fourth of those committed by strangers. This may be the case because the 

definition of a crime may vary in the 

mind of the victim, depending on the 

victim's relationshi!? to the offender. 

For example, victims who are threat-

.. 

Table 6. TIme IIIld place oC oceurrence oC violellt crime incidents, 

by vlcUm-oCrender relationship, 1982--34 

Percent of incidents 

Time and place oC occurrence Relative Acquaintance S:rangll.l' 

Time oC occurrence 100% 100% 10093 

Day, S a.m.-{; p.m. 49 56 44 

Nighl, 6 p.m.--6 a.m. 49 43 56 

Don't know 1 - 1 

Place of occurrence 100% 100% 100% 

10 own home 58 18 4 

Near own home 11 14 9 

I Friend's, relative's, 01' 

nei~hbor's home 15 12 4 

On the street 6 13 ~9 

Commercial/retail 

establishment 4 12 16 

Parking lot 3 6 11 

L, school, on school property 1· 16 ij 

Park, field, or playground 1· 2 3 

Other location 1 7 7 

Total number oC incidents 1,367,700 5,310,400 9,585,901) 

Note: Percentages may not total to 100 because of rounding. 

Total may include cases Cor which d~tail was not ascertained. 

'"Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Methodology section. 

I u Less than 0.596. 

- .. ,..-.' 

Table 7. Violent crime vicUmizaUoos resulting !.it attack, 

injury, Ol' medical care. by vicUm-oCIender relationship, 1982-84 

- Percent or victimizations 

ltesult oC victimization Rclatj;'e Acquaintanci! S~a.niar 

Attack 6296 5196 4496 

!njury" 47 33 27 

Gun or kniCe wound 1· 1 1 

Other serious injury " 4 3 

Mlno~ injury 43 27 ~2 

Injury requiring: 

1r1edical attention 20 16 14 

Hospital Cfti"!) 4 4 4 

Total numbel' oC victimizations 1,502,400 6,114,000 11,488,000 

.. Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Metholodogy section. 

··Types oC injury add to marc thl1ll total because victim may have 

recE1ived more than one injury. Minor injuries include bruises, black 

eyes, cuts, scratci'lllS, and chipped teeth. L--. 

ened or attacked by relatives (but not 

injured) may not perceive the incident 

as serious or as a crime at all and may 

not report it to a survey interviewer. 

On the other hand, threats or attempted attacks by strangers may be perceived as serious and therefore are repor-ted to an interviewer more frequently. 

Though the victims were injured 

less often, the injuries resulting from 

crimes by strangers and acquaintances 

required medical attention or hospi tal 

care more often than those resulting 

from crimes by relatives. 

10jury 

requiring: 

Per-cent oC victims injured by: 

AcquainRelative tance Stranger 

Medical 

attentiol'l 4296 47% 5196 

Hospital 

care 9 13 16 

Total number 

oC injured 

victims 707,800 2,020,000 3,049,300 

5 

Most injuries resulting from an 

attack were minor regardless of the 

victim-offender relationship. About 

four-fifths of the injuries inflicted by 

strangers and acquaintances and about 

nine-tenths of those inflicted by relatives were in this category, which includes bruises, black eyes, cuts, and 

scratches. Injuries resulting from the 

use of a gun or knife were a very smail 

proportion of total injuries for all three 

groups of victims. 

" 
~ " i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

t 

- '9' 

§elf-protection 

Overa14 about 3 out of 4 violent 

crime victims did something to protect 

themselves during the crime incident 

(table 8). Methods of self-protection 

included fleelng from the offender, rea:- . soning with the assailant, trying to get 

help, using physical force, and using or 

brandishing a weapon. Victims of a 

. stranger crime were less likely to protect themselves than victims who knew 

the assailant. 

Th~ most frequently mentioned 

method of self-defense (employed by 

nearly a third of the victims) was nonviolent resistance, which included locking a door, fleeing from the offender, 

hiding, and shielding oneself. Nonviolent resistance was more frequently 

used by victims of a crime committed 

by a relative than a crim·e by an acquaintance or stranger. 

Victims of a violent crime by a relative were also more likely to try to 

get help or frighten the offender than 

victims of a. violent crime committad 

by an acquaintance or stranger. They 

were, however, less likely to use physical force. Victims of a crime by a 

relative or acquaintance more frequently tried to reason with or threaten 

the offender than did victims of a 

crime by a stranger. 

The least common method of selfprotection for all violent crime victims 

was the use or display of a gun, knife, 

or other weapon. Victims confronted 

by a stranger, however, were more 

likely to use or display a weapon (5%) 

than were victims of crime by a relative (2%) or an acquaintance (3%). 

Reporting crimes to the police 

Less than half of all violent crimes 

were reported to the police from 1982 

through 1984 (table 9). Stranger-tostranger crimes were reported 47% of 

the time. Crimes by relatives were 

most likely to be reported (53%), and 

crimes by acquaintances were least 

likely (40%). 

The higher police reporting rate for 

'violent crimes by relatives shOUld, however, be interpreted with caution. The 

true proportion of crimes by relatives 

'that are reported to the police is probably lower than the survey estimate. 

Those victims of crimes by relatives 

who were willing to discuss their victimization experiences possibly comprise a special group of domestic assault victims. They may be more willing to discuss their experiences with an 

interviewer because they have already 

. 

Table 8. SelC-proteetive mell.Sures employed by victi/llll o( violent 

crimes. by victfm-oCCe:ndcr relationship, 1982-84 

Percent of victimizations 

Sell-protective measures Relative Acquaintance Stranger 

Tried to protect themselves 82% 79% i6% 

Used or brandished a gun, 

knile, or other weapon 2 3 5 

Used physical Coree 20 26 25 

Tried to get help or frighten oCCender 27 17 17 

Threatened, argued, or reasoned with oCCender 27 25 18 

Used nonviolent resistance, 

including evasion 37 30 30 

Notel Types or seIClIrotection add to more than total bec:ause victim 

I,lay have used more than one measure. 

Table 9. VIolent crime Incident3 reported to police, by 

victfm-olCender relationship, 1982-84 

Perc:ent of Incidents 

Incident reported to pollce Relative Acquaintance Stranger 

Total 100% 100% 100% 

Reported to pollce 53 40 47 

Not reported 47 59 51 

Respondent not sure ... 1 1 

Note: Percentages may not total to 100 because oC rounding. 

"Represents 10 or lewer sample cases; see Methodology section. - Less than 0.5%. 

Table 10. Moat Important re8.!lOll CIX" repor~ violent crime victimizations to the police, by victim-o!!ender relationship, 1982-84 

Percent of victimizations 

Reason lor reporting Relative Acquaintance Stranger 

Total 100% 100% 100% 

To stop or prevent this 

incident from heppening 28 21 14 

To keep It from heppening 

again or to athol'll 31 33 24 

To collec:t insurance or to 

recover propc"rty 2· 3 9 

Needed help aIter incident 4 3 3 

There was evidence or proo! -. 1· 1· 

To punish the ollender 7 14 14 

Respondent'iS duty/because 

it W8lI a crime 5 10 16 

Other 16 9 13 

Not a:scertained 6 G 8 

Notol Perc:sntages may not total to 100 because of rounding. 

-Represent3 10 or Cewer sample cases; see Methodology section. 

- Less than 0.5%. 

reported the crimes to the police and 

discussed them with others. Those who 

have not done so may be more reluctant 

to report them in a survey interview. 

Of those violent crime victims who 

reported the crime to the police, about 

lout of 3 victims of a nonstranger 

crime and lout of 4 victims of a stranger crime stated that the most important reason for notifying the police was 

to keep the incident from happening 

again, either to themselves or to others 

(table 10). Another common reason for 

reporting victimizations was to stop or 

prevent the incident from occurring, 

such as when the police are called to 

prevent an imminent attack. Victims 

of crimes by strangers and acquaint6 

ances more often notified the police to 

seek punishment of the offender than 

did victims of crimes by relatives. 

or the victims who did not report 

the crime to the police, about <1 out of 

10 victims of crimes by relatives or acquaintances stated that the most impOl·tant reason was because the incident 

was a private or personal matter (table 

11). The most common reason victims 

of crime by a stranger gave for not 

calling the police was because the incident was not important enough to warrant police attention. 
I; Methodology 

The data for this report were 

obtained Crom the 1982-84 NatiQnal 

Crime Survey. An average sample of 

58,000 households and 123,000 individuals were interviewed twice a year 

about crimes-including those crimes 

not reported to the police. Series 

crimes (those representing three or 

more incidents about which the victim 

could not provide detail on separate 

events) were included in the counts as 

one incident, each based on details of 

the most recent incident. Because the 

survey population includes only persons 

age 12 and over, child abuse is insufficiently measured and is therefore not 

discussed in this report. 

Survey respondents who were victims of a violent crime were asked a 

series of questions to determine their 

prior relationship with the offender. 

Victims responded to questions based on 

their perceptions of this relationship. 

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 represent the victim-offender relationship. For example, if the victim reported that a boyfriend and a stranger 

were involved in an incident, the relationship was considered to have involved a boyfriend. 

The findings in this report are presented in terms of victimizations and 

incidents. One criminal incident may 

involve more than one victim. Between 

1982 and 1984, there were an average 

of 1.17 victimizations per violent crime 

incident. Victim weights were used in 

generating crime level estimates, victim characteristics, and offender characteristics. Incident weights were applied fer estimating characteristics of 

the crime itself (such as number of offenders and place of occurrence). 

All comparisons presented in this 

report are statistically significant at 

the 95 % confidence level or above. It 

is not possible to constrlJ,ct accur~te 

confidence intervals around estimates 

based upon 10 or fewer sample cases 

because standard error formulas may 

not produce accurate values for such 

estimates. Therefore caution should be 

used when comparing estimates based 

upon 10 or fewer sample cases to other 

small estimates. 

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 

Total 100% 100% 100% 

Private or persona! matter 46 38 18 

Not important enough 9 19 24 

Reported to someone else 5 14 10 

F ear of repri~al 15 5 3 

Police ...... ,Ild not want 

to be bothered 5 5 6 

Police would be ineCrective, 

ine£!lclent, and insensitive 7 2 5 

Lack of proof, no ID number, 

not aware crime occurred 

Wltillater -. 1 12 

Object recovered, oUender 

WlsuccessCul 1- Z 6 

Too inconvenient or tlma consuming I· 1 3 

Other 10 10 11 

Not ascertained _0 2 3 

Notel Perll8ntages may not total to 100 because ot rounding. 

-Represents 10 or fewer sample cases; see Methodology section. 

- Less than 0.5%. 

7 

\ 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Special Reports are prepared 

principally by BJS st~ff. This 

report was written by Anita D. 

Tlmrots and Michael R. Rand, 

with statistical assistance by 

Gertrude Thomas. It was edited 

by Frank D. Balog under the 

supervision of Steven R. 

Schlesinger, direc tor. Marianne 

Zawitz provided assistance in data 

presentation. Marilyn Marbrook, 

publications unit chief, administered report production, assisted 

by Tina Dorsey, Jeanne Harris, 

and Arlene F. James. 

January 1987, NCJ-I037q2