It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: grandmakdw
agree with most of this but want to add that higher quality education be made available to the children and parents.
i would be willing to bet the level and quality of education that people committing crimes have is terrible.
family life + quality of education = better job opportunities and less crime.
originally posted by: NavyDoc
Certainly statistically AA males commit a preponderance of violent crime, but it is not due to race. There is only a difference of less 0.1% of genes from "race" to "race"--about the same as the genetic differences from individual to individual. Humankind as a whole are actually a genetically homogeneous group and "race" is more a social construct than a genetic one.
Article on Genetics in "Nature"
So why is the rate of violent crime so much higher among AA males?
The answer is, as usual, multifactoral (many reasons and situations working at the same time).
You have a culture that idolizes violence and gang behavior. Males of other "races" that embrace such a culture also tend to have a higher crime rates. When one idolizes the criminal, the abusive, the misogynistic, they tend to act out all of these things.
We have high rates of poverty and illiteracy--especially in the inner cities.
We have a higher percentage of single family households without positive male role models often over several generations. Women have children by several absent fathers as their mother did before her and her mother's mother did before that. The family used to be the center of the AA culture and young men were used to be taught respect and law abiding behaviors, now they are pushed out into the street where the gang becomes their new family.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
All data points are important in anything approaching a real understanding of statistical analysis.
The greater the focus on one aspect of the data (like race, age, sex, homelife, etc.) the more likely the conclusion is skewed.
As we've seen here.
Indeed, we need to understand as many parameters that impact the situation as possible in order to make proactive and productive changes to combat the trends we've been discussing,
Yet, a compelling suggestion is that the tendency toward committing most but not all violent crimes can also be directly and profoundly affected by economic status particularly when that status is below the poverty line both in child home life and as adults.
Sources:
Inequality and Violent Crime - World Bank Report
Poverty, Income Inequality, and Violent Crime: A Meta-Analysis of Recent Aggregate Data Studies - The Criminal Justice Review
Recent studies and trends have currently demonstrated that the connection of single parent households, particularly single-mother households are not as significant indicators as they were once thought to be.
Sources that specifically address the notion that single mother families are a primary determinant in crime and violent crime:
Single Mothers Now off the Hook for Crime Wave! - Mother Jones
Single Moms Can't Be Scapegoated for the Murder Rate Anymore - The Atlantic
Sources: Crime data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, family structure from the US Census Bureau.
I invite any to read the sources and review the data and conclusions for themselves. Also, rather than attempt to dismiss evidence based on political bias alone, perhaps we should consider the sources of the actual DATA first (rather than the messengers.)
EDIT: Yes, I understand the need to take my own medicine on the last statement.
Work requirements formed the foundation of the welfare reform law of 1996. However, in July, the Obama Administration issued a directive declaring that states no longer need comply with the law’s work standards. Contrary to media reports, the Obama Administration is not merely “tweaking” the law’s workfare system. Rather, HHS explicitly asserts that it will lower the number of recipients who are required to work or, even worse, allow states to bypass the law’s work requirements entirely. The Administration is turning welfare reform on its head by jettisoning the legislative goal of reducing welfare caseloads. Under the Administration’s new welfare performance standard, the pre-reform welfare system is judged a rousing success and the 1996 welfare reform is a failure.
During the four decades that preceded the 1996 welfare reform, the AFDC caseload never experienced a substantial decrease. However, within just a few years of TANF’s implementation, the caseload was cut in half, and employment rates and earnings among single mothers soared.[1] Child poverty rates declined significantly. Roughly 3 million fewer children lived in poverty in 2003 than in 1995, including 1.2 million fewer black children, marking the lowest level of black child poverty in the nation’s history.[2]
Contrary to press reports, the Obama Administration did not merely “tweak” the law’s workfare system. The proposed changes are not temporary responses to the current recession; they constitute a permanent long-term change in the TANF program. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asserts that it has authority to “waive compliance” with every provision in Section 407, which means all of the work rules in the TANF law.[4] The Obama Administration is planning to fundamentally change the TANF work rules in two ways: First, in its July 12 guidance memorandum, HHS clearly states that it is empowered to change the “definitions of work activities, and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the calculation of participation rates.”[5] HHS is proposing to alter the core elements of the TANF work rules by lowering the work participation rates and the hours of required participation and by broadening the definitions of work. Second—and more radically—HHS proposes to permit states to bypass the TANF work rules of Section 407 entirely and operate under alternative standards devised unilaterally by HHS without consultation with or approval from Congress. HHS clearly explains that its aim is to develop policies and welfare rules “other than those set forth in Section 407.”[6]
2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of 10 states, which found that several states had sought to skirt the federal work requirements by counting welfare recipients as working if they engaged in activities such as “personal journaling,” “motivational reading,” “exercise at home,” “weight loss promotion,” and “helping a friend or relative with household tasks.”[25]
In the 10 years prior to welfare reform (1986–1995), the number of employment exits nearly doubled, and the AFDC caseload increased by almost 30 percent. In the 10 years after welfare reform (1997–2006), the TANF caseload fell by 50 percent, and the number of employment exits fell by 7 percent. Because employment exits are inherently misleading, Congress deliberately excluded them as a performance standard when crafting the 1996 welfare reform law. The Obama Administration is reviving this bogus measure and plans to focus the TANF program around it.[32] According to the Administration’s preferred measure of welfare performance, the pre-reform AFDC system was a stunning success (employment exits nearly doubled), and the post-reform TANF program was a failure (employment exits declined). President Barack Obama has not merely gutted welfare reform; he has turned it on its head.
Now the Obama Administration is seeking to make employment exits the central performance standard of a radically revised TANF program. Paradoxically, by this standard, the pre-reform AFDC program was a stunning success: Employment exits nearly doubled in the decade before reform and caseloads increased by a third. By the same deceptive standard, the post-reform TANF program has been a decided failure: Both exits and caseloads have fallen.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: grandmakdw
Horsefeathers.
Welfare hasn't worked the way you're implying in almost 20 years. (See previous posts.)
Obama hasn't removed anything, anywhere. (See previous posts.)
You're just repeating ideology. (Sigh.)
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated
Yep. Correlation does not prove connection or causation. Given.
I can appreciate your understanding of the issue and the restatement of your opinion.
However, as you point out, there are a multitude of possibilities here because there is no ONE right ANSWER.
I live in Atlanta. We certainly have our share of violence, though, thankfully for us woefully for you, nothing like Chicago. I see families everyday that are and have been single parent as well as having both parents, or grandparents, or other configurations. When the household has to run on not much money, there are more problems, some of which become criminal.
Economic status makes more sense to me because as I look across the spectrum of crimes, what I see repeatedly is either monetary need or greed at the base of so many.
Doesn't the Bible say that the love of money is the root of all evil?
I'm certainly not offering that as evidence, but, it's worth thinking about.
EDIT: Thanks again for your even-handed response; much appreciated.
originally posted by: Foderalover
Wow I never knew this, I just happened to see it . On top of being responsible for nearly half of the murders in the US, black men only make up 12-13% of the population, could it get any worse ? *SNIP*
blogs.channel4.com...
Mod Edit: Snipped Snide Staff Jab
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated
Yeah, I've read Riley's book; some good points, seems one-sided overall.
Morehouse huh? West Georgia and Tech here. Atlantan born and bred.
My partner is finishing up at Emory.
I hear what you're saying, I can't dispute what you're saying, except to say that I think there's more to it, and I don't think the solution is just to pull the safety net out from everyone at once.
. Until the black community is willing to acknowledge it is in fact phucked up and no is responsible for its current state except black folks, then I don't think any progress will ever be made.