U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Rural Victimization in a Southern State (From Criminal Justice in Rural America, P 29-39, 1982, Shanler D Cronk et al, ed. - See NCJ-83675)

NCJ Number
83676
Author(s)
J B Moore; R H C Teske
Date Published
1982
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Results are reported from two Texas surveys that examined the nature of criminal victimization of rural residents and rural residents' perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system.
Abstract
A statewide 1979 victimization survey focused on the nature of the victimization of rural residents, while a simultaneous statewide survey focused on perceptions of crime and the criminal justice system. Subjects for both surveys were sampled from the Department of Public Safety's driver's license list. The statewide sample of 2,000 Texans was randomly selected, while the rural sample of 3,003 Texans was selected through a multistage stratified sampling process. A total of 2,272 usable rural survey instruments were returned, while 1,530 usable statewide survey instruments were completed. Of the fifth of the rural respondents who had been victimized, the majority suffered property victimization, mostly larceny theft and vandalism. Just over one-half of the property crime occurred away from home, particularly in vehicles, and about one-third occurred at the victims' homes. Only about one-half of the crimes were reported to police. Responses on perceptions of crime suggest that rural residents have relatively little fear of victimization. Crime concerns of rural residents focus on theft, drugs, and traffic. Rural residents, however, use fewer security devices in their homes and on their property and are less likely than statewide residents to keep a gun for the sole purpose of protection. Most rural respondents felt the courts are too easy on criminals, and they are less likely than statewide residents to view rehabilitation as an important function of prison. Eight references and three notes are provided. (Author summary modified)