Black Men Commit Nearly Half of the Murders in the United States

a reply to: Xtrozero

So ... no logic, no math, just "Ha ha, yeah but those are just numbers"

See, you have to actually prove things with numbers, not just make it up, and insert numbers as you need them, as you keep doing.

Here's how it works. Start with actual published numbers, like I did, and then perform actual mathematical operations on them, like I did.

Because you, and everyone that makes the same mistake as you, want to calculate the crime percentage based only on the partial population, not the whole population, as I pointed out. You want to ignore that there are approximately 5.5 times as many Whites as Blacks in the whole population, the factor which, if you bothered to actually do any real math, you are inflating the percentage of "Black crime" by every time you state it.

Enjoy your new car, Mr.(and/or)Ms. Zero!

a reply to: Willtell

Contrary to popular mythology, not all serial killers are white. Serial killers span all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. The racial diversity of serial killers generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population. There are well documented cases of African-American, Latino and Asian-American serial killers. African-Americans comprise the largest racial minority group among serial killers, representing approximately 20 percent of the total. Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as Ted Bundy become popular culture icons.

What percentage of the population is African American again? 13-15%?

You don't hear about it because the victims are usually poor black people. Also, (and I am not at all up to date with the DSM anymore) a serial killer differs greatly (or did) from a signature killer (think Bundy). Serial killer used to mean someone that killed 3 or more times with a cooling off period in between.

African Americans seem to generally (and sadly) commit more crimes proportionally than other races. Again, this may have changed in the last 5 years or so, but it was the case not long ago, and I doubt it's changed all that much.

Now this in no way means black people have a propensity for crime or violence. The issue is incredibly complex. It's not rap music, and it's not being poor either. What this means is that there are multiple issues contributing to the disproportionate amount of black people that commit crime.

Being black doesn't make someone more likely to commit crime. It makes them statistically more likely, but statistics are sort of BS because they can't account for everything. They are easily skewed. You could take the most popular car in America (which would likely have the most accidents) then say that all the drivers of that vehicle are more likely to be bad drivers because they get in more wrecks.

Gun owners are probably much more likely to shoot someone than someone that doesn't own a gun. People who drink are more likely to get a DUI. People with a lawn are more likely to own a lawn mower.

This is a real issue, and trying to scream racism about it is idiotic and counterproductive. It's a real problem, it doesn't mean that all black people are the same or should be expected to act the same. If you meet a black person and instantly think "Oh, probably a criminal!" you're a racist. If you look at the data and say "Hmm, there seems to be a real problem and we should discuss it" it means you're not a blathering fool and actually care.

a reply to: Domo1

What help can we offer the African American population? If we accept the idea put forth here on several occasions that any attempt to help this portion of the population is really hurting them and/or actually creating the problems that we're discussing?

So, what do "we" do and how do "we" do it? Just having them all vote Republican seems a little too easy ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I wish I knew. I really freaking do.

There needs to be an open and honest discussion about it on a national level. I don't see that happening because everyone is scared of being racist, and while that irritates me I understand it. I don't think anyone is going to be able to successfully campaign saying anything I've said. No one in the mainstream media is going to touch it. It's pretty much a guaranteed derailing of someone's career, in any profession.

It seems like the people that take a more middle of the road approach that can actually say, "Hey, there is a problem" are far outnumbered by people who think saying there is a problem is racist, or blame black people as a whole for the problems they are facing. I really think that you could be the most compassionate, unbiased person in the world with a doctoral degree in every single subject and still not be able to solve the problem.

Despite all the naysayers, things are improving. Things of this nature can never improve fast enough. We can't give everyone a level playing field in a day, and we can't figure out what contributes to bad behavior overnight.

Maybe time. I'm hoping time will help. I've got faith.

a reply to: Domo1

What an excellent, genuine post!

But be careful, because I don't think everyone is as even-handed or equitable as you are on the subject.

a reply to: Domo1
a reply to: Gryphon66

There is a solution but it would be deemed racist and cruel.

Here it is:

Make either job training or going to school a requirement for getting welfare. With proof of attendance. Provide free child care. Continue the free child care after the mother has a job until the child enters first grade.

Pay extra to married couples who need welfare, with the requirement that both do job training or go to school; so the father can live in the home.

Require paternity tests, each father in poverty who lives with his biological children gets a bonus stipend while on welfare. If any child in the home is not biologically his, no stipend. This seems cruel but will force generational welfare families into learning how to be a family.

Continue all benefits for families on welfare after the parent(s) get a job (except the welfare check itself) until the family reaches the average income for a family in the US. Gradually lowering the benefits so that the lowered benefits are 1/4 or less of each raise in income. Thus encouraging striving for higher incomes.

Note: There is NO mention of race, but I'm certain someone will call me racist over this suggestion.

Also, the notion that a mother should stay home is outdated. Why should women on welfare be allowed to stay home with their children, while middle class mothers must work to make ends meet? Paying for childcare is far less expensive than paying for a lifetime of welfare. It is time the infantilization and paternalistic attitude toward people on welfare come to an end. They should have the same expectations upon them as are upon the middle class, and that means a productive mother with the children in child care.

Restoring honor to the home rather than dependency.
Restoring the family rather than marginalizing males and
making males a subhuman class in the US
(as our government policies have done)
would actually be the best thing to lower
the crime rates we are now seeing from
men caught in a generational cycle of being "throw aways" when it come to family life.

a reply to: crazyewok

If history crime and proverty, arts of rap and hip hop and tradition of violence is endemic to area Id call that a culture albit a bad one.

No your wrong. Dead wrong. Go read up about the history of rap and you'll see that the gangster culture was in no way shape or form influential in it's creation and upbringing.

End of the day ratio wise more blacks are in prison than whites.

So how do you explain that?

Not going to explain it as their are a myriad of reasons. And from the tone of your posts, you wouldn't give much weight or consideration to those reasons.

If people are brough up in a negative enviroment that encourages violence, crime and gangs that will be the end redult.

I agree with that to a point. Not everyone falls into that lifestyle. I was brought up in a "impoverished" area with crime and drugs but I didn't go into that. Why is that if it's the environment?

If you want to understand the problem you have to understand history. Black American history would shed a lot of life for you on this subject. If you do decide to read up on it, make sure you hear from both sides of the story to flesh it all out.

a reply to: TechniXcality

If you don't want to defend it then don't say it kid.

a reply to: Domo1
a reply to: Gryphon66


I actually saw this work in one of the Universities I taught in.

They had a requirement (for a time) that required all mothers on welfare either do job training or go to college and child care was paid for. The tuition and books were also paid for.

I had quite a few welfare mothers in my program. One in particular who took most of her classes in the major from me said that when she graduated her goal was to help lift other welfare mothers out of poverty.

Stiff requirements for women to do something productive in order to receive welfare, just like middle class mothers and all of the millions of working mothers in the US, is the first step. If the woman is not bright enough for (or refuses) job training or high school completion or college, then required community service (with free childcare) to give back is the first step to restoring pride.

originally posted by: cenpuppie
Why is that if it's the environment?

Because one can buck the environment they live in as it does not necessarily have to dictate your life.
It hard to do and may need strong will power but it is doable.

Which is why I don't believe the problem in African American community is genetical as it would be hard coded for all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious as to how you think skin-color contributes to ones tendency towards violent behavior?

You seem to imply that skin color is a deciding factor in one's behaviour, and I'm curious as to what sort of scientific study you're relying on for this conclusion.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm curious as to how you think skin-color contributes to ones tendency towards violent behavior?

You seem to imply that skin color is a deciding factor in one's behaviour, and I'm curious as to what sort of scientific study you're relying on for this conclusion.

I have had many conversations with Gryphon, and while we regularly disagree with each other. I can tell you for certain that he/she does NOT believe skin color contributes to ones tendency towards violent behavior.

My guess is he/she will ignore you as you are doing what we call baiting on ATS
That is not allowed
and Gryphon is very intelligent and will most likely ignore your attempt to draw him/her
into an innane exchange.

There have been many exchanges of thought on this thread that are not racist but rather thoughtful analysis of the harsh realities of life in the welfare community, out of which much if not most of the criminal behavior comes from.

Institutionalized poverty - ie welfare
Institutionalized break up of families - i.e. welfare
Institutionalization of kicking males out of families - i.e. welfare
Is the problem - not skin color

What to do about it? You may find this montage of my previous posts highly offensive and racist:

the notion that a mother should stay home is outdated. Why should women on welfare be allowed to stay home with their children, while middle class mothers must work to make ends meet? Paying for childcare is far less expensive than paying for a lifetime of welfare. It is time the infantilization and paternalistic attitude toward people on welfare come to an end. They should have the same expectations upon them as are upon the middle class, and that means a productive mother with the children in child care.
Make either community service or job training or going to school a requirement for getting welfare (with paid tuition and books). With proof of attendance. Provide free child care. Continue the free child care after the mother has a job until the child enters first grade.

Continue all benefits for families on welfare after the parent(s) get a job (except the welfare check itself) until the family reaches the average income for a family in the US. Gradually lowering the benefits so that the lowered benefits are 1/4 or less of each raise in income. Thus encouraging striving for higher incomes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Good grief!

I'm in the very odd position (for both of us, LOL) of agreeing with GrandmaKDW, and having to thank her for her kind comments.

(Thanks Grandma! Your comment really meant more to me than you know. )

Perhaps, LesMisanthrope, if you quote what you're talking about I can clarify what I intended, or at least provide more information.

I see myself as the one in this discussion arguing AGAINST analyzing crime purely in terms of race.

I certainly do not believe that "skin color" is a deciding factor in one's behavior.

Behavior is based on a constellation of traits, circumstances, history and instincts.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about

a reply to: grandmakdw

Are you familiar with the changes made in the Welfare program in '96 in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act?

Several times, reading what you've written, I'm wondering if you just have the old style "free money giveaway" concerns in mind. This made changes to almost all "Welfare" programs that put into place exactly what you're talking about.

President Clinton supported the "end of Welfare as we know it" and worked with the "Republican Revolution" Congress to get this passed, bringing him into conflict with many in his own party.

Race by itself in no way is a predictor of criminality nor is there some inherent trait among races that makes some more likely to commit crime than others. However, once cannot divorce race from statistics about criminality, particularly when looking at the numerous other predictive traits that highly correlate with a life of crime.

Typically, when you look at murder victims as well as those who commit the crime, you will usually find several other commonalities:

Race
Poverty
Raised by Single Mother
No positive male father figure
Previous criminal record
Poor education
Gang affiliation
Victim and Perpetrator know each other
Etc...

All of these traits interact with each other and could be a contributing factor. However, when I look at the data, I see the many of the other traits resulting from the Single Mother. Even among other races, being raised by a single mother has the highest predictive value of being a screw up in life. In fact, white people are rapidly catching up with Blacks and Hispanics in terms of the cultural dysfunction born from having children out of wedlock.

There is absolutely nothing positive that results from single motherhood statistically. So when you have a community that has 70% or more of kids being born behind the eight ball from birth, you are going to see some phucked up stats in regards to dysfunctional behavior.

If anyone is curious:

Black out of wedlock birth rate is 72%. Hispanics is around 50% Whites are around 30%. Asians are about 15%. Notice how these birth rates correlate highly with overall success of the groups when it comes to overall incomes, education, etc.

And no, I am not arguing that ALL kids raised by single mothers are going to be screw ups, so please don't waste anyone's time with that nonsense.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I have heard of that, I'll have to do some research on it later, too busy now.

But I believe Pres Obama signed an executive order doing away with
the work requirement for welfare.

Found it from a Democratic source:
waysandmeans.house.gov...

Obama did undo a program that was showing great promise,
I saw it in action in my classrooms, women in school and actually aspiring to have careers
rather than make a career out of being a welfare mother.

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.

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.

a reply to: Willtell

Funny you mentioned that-I sat next to the Lester Street murderer in class for 2 years.

The worst mass murderer in Memphis' history happens to be black,lol.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Paul Ryan is a Republican, Grandma.

As to Congressman Ryan's claim, he's merely repeating what Santorum, Romney and others misstated in the 2012 Presidential primaries and campaign:

The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.

To update that, no changes have been made to any policies, as no States requested the proposed waivers.

Statement of Administration Policy

But, I do realize this is a right-left talking point we can continue to bat about.

HOWEVER, I strongly encourage you to read up on the massive overhaul to the Welfare programs in 1996. (That's why I never understand the rhetoric about New Deal and War on Poverty standards ... those have all been changed at this point for almost 20 years)

en.wikipedia.org... tunity_Act