The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Faid:
| Quote | So... We've gone from "liberal bias in the media" to "multicultural bias in the media" to "pro-immigrant bias in the media" to "black criminals target more whites". Ok, how does that apply as an argument to anything but demonstrate the social and financial gap between the two groups (or, you know, as plain old racial "where the white women at" prejudice)?
|
It's true that I haven't supported the pro-immigrant part yet. Please remember that I brought the topic up to answer a specific question, and didn't necessarily mean to make it a central part of my argument. However, I did demonstrate that the media's coverage of interracial crime flies in the face of the relevant statistical evidence, and cited a source that demonstrates how the media selectively amplify majority-on-minority crime, even though they have other commercial formulae available (see Eldin's complaint about the Dutch media - or don't the Dutch media enjoy turning a profit?).
| Quote | So... We've gone from "liberal bias in the media" to "multicultural bias in the media" to "pro-immigrant bias in the media" to "black criminals target more whites". Ok, how does that apply as an argument to anything but demonstrate the social and financial gap between the two groups (or, you know, as plain old racial "where the white women at" prejudice)?
Or are you saying these are all underreported hate crimes? If that's it, and since you asked for data, here's some that's more relevant.
|
First, if you're going to cite a hoax, at least pick one that scans better. Or didn't you read my earlier objections to the federal hate crime data? I guess not, so here it is once again:
| Quote | Let us examine these claims under the light of what the facts actually show. In 1999, lawenforcement agencies nationwide reported a total of 7,876 hate crimes to the FBI, of which 4,295 (or 55 percent) were motivated by racial bias. Because some of those victimizations involved more than one offense (e.g., assault and robbery), the 4,295 incidents actually encompassed 5,240 separate offenses. If we exclude all racially motivated offenses whose perpetrators are categorized as being of "unknown race," and focus specifically on those offenses definitely involving both blacks and whites, we find that blacks were victims of 2,030 racially motivated offenses committed by whites, while whites were victims of 524 racially motivated offenses committed by blacks. Thus whites were responsible for 79.5 percent of these interracial hate crimes, and blacks 20.5 percent.
While this may appear to support the popular assertion that whites are likelier than blacks to commit hate crimes, we must remember that the total population of nonHispanic whites is about 6 times larger than the total population of nonHispanic blacks. When we factor this population disparity into the equation, we find that the "average" black is actually about 50 percent likelier than his or her white counterpart to commit what is classified as a racially motivated hate crime. Because this fact so radically contradicts most Americans’ prevailing worldview, one would think it might be big news deemed worthy of discussion by activists and academics alike. But in fact these are among the most underpublicized numbers in all of criminal justice.
Another vital fact to consider is that FBI hatecrime statistics list "Hispanics" as a category of victims (of crimes motivated by ethnicity or national origin), but not as a category of offenders. Instead, Hispanic offenders are lumped together with whites. In other words, the current hatecrime classification system allows for Hispanics to be counted as victims of hate crimes, but never as perpetrators of such crimes. This, of course, artificially inflates the share of hate crimes committed by "whites."
Finally, we must note that while very few of those crimes that cross racial lines are categorized as hate crimes, whiteonblack offenses of that nature are far likelier to be called hate crimes than are blackonwhite offenses.
For instance, in October 1999, a white man named Troy Knapp was attacked by a mob of black men wielding pipes and trash cans, while riding his bike with a companion in Charleston, SC. Knapp was beaten so severely that part of his skull and brain had to be removed, leaving him barely functional.
Seventeen suspects were arrested and charged with seconddegree lynching. However, local prosecutor David Schwacke commented, "We haven't been able to establish hate as a motive."
According to a Fox News report, Schwacke, "acknowledged that if it had been 17 white suspects and two black victims, hate would more likely be considered a motive." The report went on to note that, "Federal hatecrime law could apply in this case, but seven months after the incident the U.S. attorney's office in South Carolina is not even considering charges."
It is impossible to know how many potential blackonwhite hate crimes have been misreported in this fashion. But, given the political pressure on police and prosecutors from the civil rights establishment, the practice is probably widespread.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1999, there were about 657,008 blackonwhite crimes of violence, as compared to some 91,051 of the whiteonblack variety. Yet although blackperpetrated interracial crimes outnumbered whiteperpetrated interracial crimes by a ratio of about 7.2 to 1, the official hatecrime statistics showed white offenders outnumbering black offenders by a 4 to 1 margin. Put another way, about 1 out of every 45 whiteonblack attacks is classified as a hate crime, while the corresponding fraction for blackonwhite attacks is an astounding 1 out of 1,254.
|
Perhaps it'll stick this time. And oh yeah, Wichita Massacre? Not a hate crime:
| Quote | Some residents in the Wichita area say the murders would have been prosecuted as "hate crimes" had the skin color of the gunmen and their victims been reversed.
However, Sedgwick County, Kan., District Attorney Nola Foulston said she would not charge the suspects with committing "hate crimes" because she believed the murders were motivated by robbery and not racial hatred.
|
Suuuuuurrrrreee they were, wee little Marxist. 
Anyhoo, let's look at some data.
| Quote | Percent of single-offender victimizations
Perceived race of offender
Number of Not known
Type of crime single-offender and not
and race of victim victimizations Total White Black Other available
Crimes of violence
White only 3,283,030 100 % 72.9 % 12.1 % 12.3 % 2.7 %
Black only 556,140 100 % 12.0 74.8 8.3 4.9 *
Completed violence
White only 879,830 100 % 71.4 13.4 13.8 1.4 *
Black only 190,170 100 % 8.3 * 77.3 8.3 * 6.1 *
Attempted/threatened violence
White only 2,403,210 100 % 73.5 11.6 11.7 3.2
Black only 365,970 100 % 14.0 73.5 8.4 * 4.2 *
Rape/Sexual assault/a
White only 131,030 100 % 57.9 15.5 * 19.8 * 6.8 *
Black only 24,010 * 100 %* 0.0 * 87.9 * 12.1 * 0.0 *
Robbery
White only 183,290 100 % 54.2 25.9 18.1 1.8 *
Black only 68,020 100 % 5.5 * 80.1 0.0 * 14.4 *
Completed/property taken
White only 93,580 100 % 44.1 31.2 * 21.2 * 3.5 *
Black only 41,810 100 % 0.0 * 92.1 0.0 * 7.9 *
With injury
White only 31,210 * 100 %* 46.6 * 44.6 * 8.8 * 0.0 *
Black only 21,060 * 100 %* 0.0 * 100.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 *
Without injury
White only 62,370 100 % 42.8 * 24.5 * 27.4 * 5.3 *
Black only 20,750 * 100 %* 0.0 * 84.0 * 0.0 * 16.0 *
Attempted to take property
White only 89,710 100 % 64.7 20.5 * 14.9 * 0.0 *
Black only 26,210 * 100 %* 14.3 * 60.9 * 0.0 * 24.7 *
With injury
White only 23,550 * 100 %* 67.3 * 32.7 * 0.0 * 0.0 *
Black only 3,240 * 100 %* 0.0 * 100.0 * 0.0 * 0.0 *
Without injury
White only 66,150 100 % 63.7 16.1 * 20.2 * 0.0 *
Black only 22,970 * 100 %* 16.4 * 55.4 * 0.0 * 28.2 *
Assault
White only 2,968,710 100 % 74.7 11.1 11.6 2.6
Black only 464,110 100 % 13.6 73.4 9.4 3.7 *
Aggravated
White only 578,070 100 % 70.1 11.3 14.8 3.8 *
Black only 115,780 100 % 19.3 * 72.3 6.6 * 1.9 *
Simple
White only 2,390,650 100 % 75.9 11.0 10.8 2.3
Black only 348,330 100 % 11.7 73.7 10.3 4.3 *
|
Now by my cipherin', the ratio of black-on-white violence to white-on-black violence (I'm ignoring the "other" category even though this supports my case) is around 5.95. For completed acts of violence, it rises to 7.47. For rapes/sexual assaults, it's about infinity, give or take a decimal (of course it really isn't, but the government can't "count" white-on-black rapes due to the infrequency of the crime). And notice that yes, blacks seem to target whites at an unusually high percentage.
Now, one could focus on the percentages of crimes and come to a much different conclusion. According to these tables, whites are slightly more likely to be victimised by other whites than population percentages would predict. And some commentators do take this position:
| Quote |
As for the claim that blacks victimize whites at rates that are far higher than the reverse, though true, this statistic is meaningless, for a few obvious but overlooked reasons, first among them the simple truth that if whites are more available as potential victims, we would naturally expect black criminals to victimize whites more often than white criminals would victimize blacks.
Examining data from 2002, there were indeed 4.5 times more black-on-white violent crimes than the reverse (5). While this may seem to support Taylor's position, it actually destroys it, because the interracial crime gap, though seemingly large, is smaller than random chance would have predicted.
The critical factor ignored by Taylor is the extent to which whites and blacks encounter each other in the first place. Because of ongoing racial isolation and de facto segregation, the two group's members do not encounter one another at rates commensurate with their shares of the population: a fact that literally torpedoes the claims in The Color of Crime.
As sociologist Robert O'Brian has noted (using Census data), the odds of a given white person (or white criminal) encountering a black person are only about three percent. On the other hand, the odds of a given black person (or black criminal) encountering a white person are nineteen times greater, or fifty-seven percent (6), meaning the actual interracial victimization gap between black-on-white and white-on-black crime is smaller than one would expect.
In 2002, blacks committed a little more than 1.2 million violent crimes, while whites committed a little more than three million violent crimes (7). If each black criminal had a 57 percent chance of encountering (and thus potentially victimizing) a white person, this means that over the course of 2002, blacks should have been expected to victimize roughly 690,000 whites. But in truth, blacks victimized whites only 614,176 times that year (8).
Conversely, if each white criminal had only a three percent chance of encountering and thus victimizing a black person, this means that over the course of 2002, whites would have been expected to victimize roughly 93,000 blacks. But in truth, whites victimized blacks 135,931 times: almost 50 percent more often than would be expected by random chance (9).
Indeed, given relative crime rates as well as rates of interracial encounter, random chance would have predicted the ratio of black-on-white to white-on-black victimization at roughly 7.4 to one. Yet, as the data makes clear, there were only 4.5 times more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes in 2002. In other words, given encounter ratios, black criminals victimize whites less often than could be expected, while white criminals victimize blacks more often than could be expected.
|
Although this argument is not invincible, it is reasonable. But why not get the facts out and let the public decide? Isn't that, like, part of the media's job? At least the media shouldn't cover up evidence, for goodness sakes.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
