Double face of insecurity problem: Crime and victimization

Double face of insecurity problem: Crime and victimization. Analyzing
its impact on individuals quality of life
Carolina Moreno
Introduction
It is indispensable for a society to recognize certain fundamental social rights.
Both “human necessities” and “human rights” theories recognize the necessity
of respect and observation of theses rights and that the democratic regime it’s
the most efficient for doing this.
Between theses theories, Doyal and Gough human necessity theory establishes
physical survival and personal autonomy as basic needs of any culture at any
time. As well they consider social participation and liberty development as both
basic needs important aims. It is necessary the development of certain forms of
organized production and of communication and authority to finally accomplish
them.
Also, theories of human rights and international declarations of human rights
recognize the right of physical survival and personal autonomy as fundamental
for all the people in the entire world. Between them, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (1966) establishes in its article 9 that “everyone has
the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such
grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”, and
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) in its article 2 recognized that
“everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
This paper aims to analyze the double face of the insecurity problem – objective
criminal facts and subjective insecurity feeling – because we consider that both
have important effects over human development and social integration. Firstly
this investigation presents the insecurity evolution from 2004 to 2011, analyzing
as well some indicators that may have an effect over insecurity levels: police
and drug presence. Secondly it studies some indicators that influence the levels
of insecurity feeling and of criminal facts. It is important to understand what
might release both faces of insecurity problem. Between those factors this
investigation studies the influence that insecurity, police presence, drug traffic
and political distrust have over objective and subjective insecurity problem.
Finally, we study some possible psychological consequences of the insecurity
problem.
This study is made with the results of the Encuesta de la Deuda Social
Argentina – Bicentenario (2010-2016)1 made by the Argentine Catholic
University Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina. It analyze as well how
1
Poner EDSA
personal, social-demographic, economic and residential characteristics affects
human development capacities in the Argentinean society,
Insecurity problem in Argentina
According to the results presented by figure 1, 29,3% of Argentineans where
victims of insecurity acts on 2011. Analyzing the evolution of this indicator
shows that this problem is growing year on year basis and registers an
approximately 10 percentage point growth from 2004. Something similar
happens when analyzing the insecurity feeling but with higher levels. Figure 2
shows that this subjective face of insecurity problem affects over eight from ten
argentines interviewed.
Figure 1: OBJECTIVE CRIMINAL FACTS
2004-2011
Population 18 years an over. In %.
40
30
24,6
26,2
26,8
2008
2009
28,4
29,3
2010
2011
83,2
82,2
2010
2011
22,8
21,7
20,9
2004
2005
20
10
0
2006
2007
Source: EDSA-Bicentenario (2010-2016), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA.
Figure 2: INSECURITY FEELING
2004-2011
Population 18 years an over. In %.
100
80
68,4
67,1
2004
2005
69,8
72,5
76,6
78,1
2008
2009
60
40
20
0
2006
2007
Source: EDSA-Bicentenario (2010-2016), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA.
Figure 3
OBJECTIVE CRIMINAL FACTS BY PERSONAL CARACTERISTICS
2010-2011
Population 18 years an over. In %.
40
2010
33,734,8
30,330,3
30
27,829,1
24,3
20,7
2011
32,632,5
30,831,1
29,529,6
22,4
20,1
22,221,0
20
10
0
18 a 34 años 35 a 59 años 60 años y más 25% Inferior 25% Superior
GRUPOS DE EDAD
Trazado
Gran Buenos Ciudades del
Villa o
asentamiento urbano de
Aires
Interior
precario
NSE medio
ESTRATO
SOCIOECONÓMICO
CONDICIÓN RESIDENCIAL
AGLOMERADO URBANO
Source: EDSA-Bicentenario (2010-2016), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA.
Figure 4: INSECURITY FEELING BY PERSONAL CARACTERISTICS
2010-2011
Population 18 years an over. In %.
2010
100
82,7 81,3
84,9 84,0
81,1 80,5
85,1 81,5
2011
80,6 80,0
83,4 85,6
82,4 82,1
81,7 80,8
85,8 84,7
80
60
40
20
0
18 a 34 años 35 a 59 años 60 años y más 25% Inferior 25% Superior
GRUPOS DE EDAD
ESTRATO
SOCIOECONÓMICO
Trazado Gran Buenos Ciudades del
Villa o
asentamiento urbano de
Aires
Interior
precario
NSE medio
CONDICIÓN RESIDENCIAL
Source: EDSA-Bicentenario (2010-2016), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA.
AGLOMERADO URBANO
Figure 5: INSECURITY FEELING AT HOME OR NEIGHBORHOOD BY SOCIAL-ECONOMIC LEVEL AND RESIDENCIAL
CONDITION
2010-2011
In percentage of households.
2010
60
50
51,3
48,0
47,6
50,3
46,3
42,5
2011
55,5
51,7
48,3
42,3
40
42,0
49,5 47,8
45,4
35,1
33,4
30
20
10
0
Muy Bajo
TOTAL
Bajo
ESTRATO SOCIOECONÓMICO
Medio Bajo
Medio Alto
Villa o
Trazado
Trazado
asentamiento urbano de NSE urbano de NSE
precario
bajo
medio
CONDICIÓN RESIDENCIAL
Source: EDSA-Bicentenario (2010-2016), Observatorio de la Deuda Social Argentina, UCA.
AGLOMERADO URBANO