Currie’s first reason for violence dictates that inequality …show more content…
According to Currie, “societies that make a strong commitment to providing those supports are less likely to suffer high rate of violent crime than those that do not,” (Currie 66). It makes sense that people feel taken care of by their government and community when they are experiencing difficult time are unlikely to commit a violent crime because they have something to look forward to and a strong foundation encouraging them to get better. It also helps close the social and economic gaps that those of “lower status” experience. The result of weak social support is worsened when strained family dynamics come into play. Domestic violence, or the abuse that occurs between family members or intimate partners, in a way is even more dangerous than public examples of violence because families “are the institutions that most influence the kinds of people we become,” (Currie 71). While any kind of family can be victims of abuse, usually families who suffer from stereotypical social and economic disadvantages that have the highest fatal cases of child and partner abuse. This does not mean that children raised in violent homes are will grow to be violent people; it just means that with many factors already against them, it is not uncommon nor unusual for this to occur. This is why Currie believes that societies “that have done more to protect families from the destructive effects of marginality and exclusion are likely to be ones with less family violence and a greater ability to sustain the kinds of family relationships that foster the health development of children,” (Currie 74). With stronger families in place and children with a good foundation, they have a chance to break the bonds of oppression that feed into creating violent chaos. However, even though