Submitted by Captain Walker on Fri, 16/02/2007 - 14:05.
That crime has a general negative effect on society cannot be in question. If I read you correctly, there is nothing new in that.
It is like throwing nasty water on a crowd of people (forgive my analogy). The nasty water will have a general unpleasant effect - few will argue with that. However, who are the people in that crowd and how might they be affected differently is the prime consideration of the poll. If we think about crime like the 'nasty water'. Whilst general effects are always there, it is useful to examine how in particular certain groups may be affected.
In most seriously adverse situations there are some common groups that seem to be vulnerable:
1. Women
2. Children
3. Elderly
4. The physically and mentally frail or disabled
5. Ethnic minorities or culturally disadvantaged/vulnerable.
These patterns have been seen across a spectrum of adverse social circumstances that would have 'general' effects. From deadly epidemics to tsunami's and genocide the pattern is largely the same in terms of certain idenifiable groups suffering disproportionately. There is nothing new in any of that either, yet it sometiems appears that not enough attention is given to it.
Serious violent crime affects people and groups in a variety of ways e.g.
1. Economically - poverty, businesses folding, excessive spending on security etc
2. Psychologically - stress, reduced overall enjoyment of life, over-suspicion, mistrust, apathy, seflishness, mental disorders, suicides, addictive behaviour.
3. Physically - injury, physical ill-health, reduced immunity, addiction to drugs and alcohol, suicide, AID's, unwanted pregnancies.
4. Socially - broken friendships, poorer quality of family life, suspicion of other groups.
Of course none of the above lists are complete. Others should add their say.
So while we will not dispute that crime has general adverse effects on people in society, the salient issue I think for all of us is 'how' and 'who' are the groups most adversely affected - and what should or could be done to help.
Anand's recent set of articles have laudably brought focus to the effects of serious crime on one large group i.e. 'Women'. They have also given us an idea of how families may be seriously affected - and certainly 'families' are an identifiable group.
We would welcome some comments from Social Workers, Sociologists, mental health workers, doctors and most important - you - if you think you are just a housewife or an average person. Give us your opinion.
Submitted by zaxe (not verified) on Fri, 16/02/2007 - 02:42.
While many might agree that violence might be targeted toward specific groups, others also look at the bigger picture in terms of the negative effects on society as a whole wherein everyone suffers the ill effects due to the actions of a few - just becasue they are not immediately impacted doesn't mean they do not feel the negative impacts at some point down the line, and there are some who hold to this line of reason. I don't think it is necessarily wrong, it's just another point of view, and I have found that it certainly doesn't mean that these folks think that specific groups are not targeted either.
Something must be wrong with some of the 9 people who voted so far in this poll. You mean to say women as a group of people not seriously affected more than any other? All you people get real! How many women have been raped and lost loved ones? I can't believe what I'm seeing.
That crime has a general negative effect on society cannot be in question. If I read you correctly, there is nothing new in that.
It is like throwing nasty water on a crowd of people (forgive my analogy). The nasty water will have a general unpleasant effect - few will argue with that. However, who are the people in that crowd and how might they be affected differently is the prime consideration of the poll. If we think about crime like the 'nasty water'. Whilst general effects are always there, it is useful to examine how in particular certain groups may be affected.
In most seriously adverse situations there are some common groups that seem to be vulnerable:
1. Women
2. Children
3. Elderly
4. The physically and mentally frail or disabled
5. Ethnic minorities or culturally disadvantaged/vulnerable.
These patterns have been seen across a spectrum of adverse social circumstances that would have 'general' effects. From deadly epidemics to tsunami's and genocide the pattern is largely the same in terms of certain idenifiable groups suffering disproportionately. There is nothing new in any of that either, yet it sometiems appears that not enough attention is given to it.
Serious violent crime affects people and groups in a variety of ways e.g.
1. Economically - poverty, businesses folding, excessive spending on security etc
2. Psychologically - stress, reduced overall enjoyment of life, over-suspicion, mistrust, apathy, seflishness, mental disorders, suicides, addictive behaviour.
3. Physically - injury, physical ill-health, reduced immunity, addiction to drugs and alcohol, suicide, AID's, unwanted pregnancies.
4. Socially - broken friendships, poorer quality of family life, suspicion of other groups.
Of course none of the above lists are complete. Others should add their say.
So while we will not dispute that crime has general adverse effects on people in society, the salient issue I think for all of us is 'how' and 'who' are the groups most adversely affected - and what should or could be done to help.
Anand's recent set of articles have laudably brought focus to the effects of serious crime on one large group i.e. 'Women'. They have also given us an idea of how families may be seriously affected - and certainly 'families' are an identifiable group.
We would welcome some comments from Social Workers, Sociologists, mental health workers, doctors and most important - you - if you think you are just a housewife or an average person. Give us your opinion.
While many might agree that violence might be targeted toward specific groups, others also look at the bigger picture in terms of the negative effects on society as a whole wherein everyone suffers the ill effects due to the actions of a few - just becasue they are not immediately impacted doesn't mean they do not feel the negative impacts at some point down the line, and there are some who hold to this line of reason. I don't think it is necessarily wrong, it's just another point of view, and I have found that it certainly doesn't mean that these folks think that specific groups are not targeted either.
Johann
Something must be wrong with some of the 9 people who voted so far in this poll. You mean to say women as a group of people not seriously affected more than any other? All you people get real! How many women have been raped and lost loved ones? I can't believe what I'm seeing.
Sharon.