"McKinley, Marcia" wrote:
> Allen:
> Do the statistics cited on children killed by parents distinguish between
> biological parents and step-parents?
>
> Allen,
> This is what the Executive Summary of the National Incidence Study-3 has to say
>about perpetrator/child relationships:
>
> "Perpetrator's Relationship to the Child. The majority of all children countable
>under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth parents, and this held
>true both for children who were abused (62% were maltreated by birth parents) and for
>those who were neglected (91% experienced neglect by birth parents).
<snip>
This appears to be at odds with the Daly and Wilson references provided by Michael
Ofsowitz that indicate a child is 40X more likely to be abused by a step parent, and
70-100X more likely to be _killed_ by a step parent (The fact that the step vs.
biological parent ratio is much higher for death than abuse argues against the old
argument that biological parents hide the abuse better. Since it is easier to hide a
bruise than a dead body, the step:biological ratio for abuse vs death would move in
the opposite direction.). Btw, this data (70-100X more likely to die at hands of step
parents) is the rate _after_ demographics such
as socio-economic status are accounted for - strong evidence for either a biological
or an evolutionary explanation.
It is my understanding (based on reading Daly and Wilson's summary book _Homicide_)
that Canadian homicide police record whether parents were step or biological, but the
US does not - hence their heavy reliance on Canadian data.
The data cited by Marcia may be misleading. The fact that 78% of the children
countable under the Harm Standard had biological parents is not a surprise since there
are far more children raised by biological parents (the old "base rate" problem). It
is the _rate_ of abuse in step vs biological households that is important (the data
reported by Michael).
Somewhere in Daly and Wilson's book (_Homicide_) they discuss how primitive societies
handle the problem of children after the father dies. In some the brother assumes
responsibility (in a polygamous society he's marry his former sister-in-law). While
this seems barbaric to us moderns who take personal freedom for granted, the practice
may be rooted in the appreciation that children are better raised by family, not
strangers. Even when death and abuse do not occur, children are often a liability in
the dating that follow a divorce (Susan Smith drowning her children in order to
increase her chance of getting another husband
would be an extreme example).
Interesting data to collect would be abuse rates for children born in a family in
which the father is not the real father (but doesn't know it). Here you could separate
the pure effects of biological relatedness from the parenting role which generally
co-vary. This data - for obvious reasons - would be hard to collect!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig
Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468
Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412
---------------------------------------------------------------
"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows
not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before,
he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
