The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Cogzoid wrote:
| Quote | | If I recall correctly, you demonstrated that the crime rates across this country fell substantially during the mid 90's. You claimed that it was due to Guiliani's doing. |
Yep. And even linked to a study backing it up. Which you dismissed without cause.
| Quote | | You failed to show, however, how Guiliani's policy changes affected every other major city's crime rates in the country. |
No, but I did demonstrate that:
1) Much of the national decline was driven by a handful of big cities (a claim you initially scoffed at, by the way)
2) At least one of those cities (Boston) adopted Guiliani-style policies
3) There was a change in the American mood, as evidenced by the Republican Revolution in Congress, which proceeded to establish badly-needed welfare reform and encourage tougher enforcement of felony sentences (if bad guys stay in prison longer, they have less opportunity to commit crime; please look at the incarceration statistics)
4) There was a net decline in crime during Reagan's tenure.
And you know what's funny about points three and four? Liberals widely predicted that crime would explode under Reagan and Newt's watch. Oh those mean ol' 'Publicans, slashin' social programs and driving women and children to the streets! Driving healthy young adults to the workforce, is more like it. To complete the pratfall, latte-lappers even tried to pin the extra homeless on the Gipper, until it was discovered that the increase was due almost exclusively to the relaxation of involuntary committal policies, inspired by......wait for it.......liberal hand-wringing.
I'm not being mean, really I'm not, but....have liberals ever made a successful prediction? About anything?
| Quote | | You claimed it was a Republican Revolution, but failed to demonstrate how that was related at all. |
Hopefully this helps.
| Quote | | I pointed out that the drop in crime rates happens to be 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and even expained how those are related. |
A good point, and one I didn't address. Why? Because even if true, it's the kind of solution I could never embrace. Heck, in my opinion, those unborn children should be added to the death total. But I didn't want to focus on that issue, because I knew it would sidetrack our debate. In any case, not all experts are sold on this idea; I've seen challenges to the study that inspired this claim. I'll look them up if you wish.
| Quote | | You also claimed that crime is higher in the more secular European countries (or at least comparable to the US) when you take race into account. Of course, you made this claim by only taking race into account in the US, not in the secular European countries. |
Actually, I claimed more than that. Even without adjusting for racial disparities, several European countries have higher victimization rates than ours (You really need to check out figures six and seven). And when you subtract racial minorities from the pool, the U.S. rates look very good indeed. Of course, you'd also have to subtract European minorities - but even then, I'll take our BEDs over theirs. This issue needs further study. And while we're at it, you never did address the Fed's crooked bookkeeping, under which Mestizos are often classified as white if they commit a crime, but as nonwhite if they're victimized. Since Mestizos are much more likely than whites to commit crimes, this artificially inflates the white crime rate. And also implies that whites target blacks for violence more than they really do. Don't kid yourself; this is very deliberate.
| Quote | You claim race is a larger factor than income levels without backing that up with data either. Humble opinion, indeed.
|
I'm struggling to stay polite here - but Cogzoid, really, you have got to be kidding. There is no possible way that you could have missed my citation of The Color of Crime during our original debate - I even quoted part of it again, and practically begged for commentary. I know that lengthy cut n' paste jobs are frowned on here, but you really brought this on yourself:
| Quote | One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings:
Quote
“… between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”
Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.
“Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”
Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”
The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.
“Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”
Far from being guilty of “racially profiling” innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: “… blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.”
“… police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals.” (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)
“[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.”
Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.
“… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”
Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.
Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit “white collar” offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.
The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.
Pretty wild, I know. Does anybody here have an informed opinion? This could very well be a crackpot study, but it seems worthy of commentary. And it is based on government data. |
Once again, I will highlight the most relevant bit:
| Quote | | The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate. [my emphasis, natch] |
Are these conclusions valid? I don't know. But to their credit, these banjo pickin', 'backy chewin' rednecks knew what they were up against, and stuck to Federal Crime data in forming their argument. I'll give them that, at least.
| Quote | | But, besides that. What about these cross-national surveys? I probably didn't see them. Can you point them out again? |
If you will address this response with more than catcalls, I will pony up the surveys.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
