Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[BlackVision]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif

Homicide Offense Rate by Race (1976-2000):

White 5.1 per 100,000
Blacks 39.3 per 100,000
Others: 5.2 per 100,000

Homicide Victim Rate by Race: (1976-2000):

Whites: 5.0 per 100,000
Blacks: 31.9 per 100,000
Others: 4.9 per 100,000

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Male: 16.7 per 100,000
Female: 2.2 per 100,000

Source: US Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm



Homicide Rate by Age Group and Gender (2000):

Males. Age 14-17:

Whites: 7.9 per 100,000
Blacks: 62.8 per 100,000

Males. Age 18-24:

Whites: 23.9 per 100,000
Blacks: 205.8 per 100,000

Males. Age 25+:

Whites: 5.3 per 100,000
Blacks: 39.2 per 100,000



Females. Age 14-17:

Whites: 1.0 per 100,000
Blacks: 4.9 per 100,000

Females. Age 18-24:

Whites: 1.8 per 100,000
Blacks: 12.6 per 100,000

Females. Age 25+:

Whites: 0.8 per 100,000
Blacks: 4.6 per 100,000

Source: US Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm

 

[BlackVision]

Interesting article on this subject. Note that the author of this article is black.

Black Community Must Rise Up Against Crime

By Walter E. Williams

Professors Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom have just published ''America in Black and White.'' Its discussion of race is far more level-headed and useful than anything the president or his recently appointed commission on race has said or is likely to say. The Thernstroms' 700-page volume covers race from the Jim Crow days right up to California's Proposition 209, but I want to highlight their chapter on crime.

Most violent crime in our country is committed by blacks. According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, blacks commit 54 percent of murders, 42 percent of forcible rapes, 59 percent of robberies and 38 percent of aggravated assaults. For the most part, the victims are black. Ninety-three percent of murdered blacks were murdered by a black.

Rest of article here:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_anchdn-voice.htm

 

[Nereid]

I guess these statistics refer to the USA, not China, India, or Belize.

DarkVision, do you have comparable figures for serious fraud, etc (the kind of crimes which were committed in the WorldCom, Enron etc scandals)?

Do you know if there is any move to reclassify some of the suicides which followed the massive destruction of value by the senior managers in such companies (e.g. when a retiree's entire life savings - held in company stock, as mandated by the company - is wiped out) as murder or manslaughter?

 

[BlackVision]

I guess these statistics refer to the USA, not China, India, or Belize.

Yeah these are American statistics but the same racial gaps exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia.


Here's statistics for the UK:

"The incarceration rate per 100,000 population in England and Wales was, 176 for whites. 150 for asians. 1,249 for blacks"

 

[Nereid]

Yeah these are American statistics but the same racial gaps exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia.

(my emphasis). The 'races' are (per BlackVision): "Whites" (or "whites"), "Blacks" (or "blacks"), "Others", and (for the UK) "asians". How many of each 'race' are there in the following "countries" (from your list, in another post):
Latvia
Singapore
Andorra
Estonia
San Marino
Macau
Hong Kong
Guernsey
Liechtenstein
St Helena
Jersey
Gibralta
Isle of Man
Finland
China
BVI
Monaco
Seychelles
Montserrat
Caymans
Iceland
Mauritius
Christmas Island
Svalbad

"The incarceration rate per 100,000 population in England and Wales was, 176 for whites. 150 for asians. 1,249 for blacks"

And how does 'the incarceration rate' relate to homicides?

 

[BlackVision]

(my emphasis). The 'races' are (per BlackVision): "Whites" (or "whites"), "Blacks" (or "blacks"), "Others", and (for the UK) "asians". How many of each 'race' are there in the following "countries" (from your list, in another post):
Latvia
Singapore
Andorra
Estonia
San Marino
Macau
Hong Kong
Guernsey
Liechtenstein
St Helena
Jersey
Gibralta
Isle of Man
Finland
China
BVI
Monaco
Seychelles
Montserrat
Caymans
Iceland
Mauritius
Christmas Island
Svalbad

The ethnic makeup of each country can be found at CIA's World Factbook. Here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

But I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at here.

And how does 'the incarceration rate' relate to homicides?

Well overall crime rate I suppose.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Any statistics in terms of socio-economic class?

 

[Nereid]

Yeah these are American statistics but the same racial gaps exists in every country.

The 'races' are (per BlackVision): "Whites" (or "whites"), "Blacks" (or "blacks"), "Others", and (for the UK) "asians". How many of each 'race' are there in the following "countries"

The ethnic makeup of each country can be found at CIA's World Factbook. Here: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

But I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to get at here.

(my emphasis)I am trying to understand the relevance of the US stats you quoted to the other ~95% of the people in the world. Your answer to my first question was to say that "the same racial gaps exists in every country", so I was curious as to what these 'racial gaps' which exist in 'every country' are.

From the source you cite I learned that:
- 'country' seems to be used to mean several different things, and has a strong 'US government policy' flavour (which isn't really surprising, but does require anyone who wants to engage in serious discussion using it as a source to openly acknowledge its limitations)
- 'race' is not used as a demographic category
- 'ethnic groups' is used, but seems to have a highly variable meaning. E.g. for
China: "Han Chinese, Zhuang, Uygur, Hui, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Manchu, Mongol, Buyi, Korean, and other nationalities"
India: "Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Mongoloid and other"
US: "white, black, Asian, Amerindian and Alaska native, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander, other"
Nigeria: "Nigeria, which is Africa's most populous country, is composed of more than 250 ethnic groups; the following are the most populous and politically influential: Hausa and Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo (Ibo), Ijaw, Kanuri, Ibibio , Tiv"
Brazil: "white (includes Portuguese, German, Italian, Spanish, Polish), mixed white and black, black, other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian)"
UK: "English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Ulster, West Indian, Indian, Pakistani, and other"
Germany: "German, Turkish, other (made up largely of Serbo-Croatian, Italian, Russian, Greek, Polish, Spanish)"

So, what did you mean when you said "the same racial gaps exists in every country"?

 

[Monique]

The question also is how large the bias is against certain racial groups, are certain groups watched more closely and thus caught at a higher rate than others?

 

[arildno]

Just a comment from Norway:
The "racial" crime component seems superficial, at best.
In contemporary Norway, the following ethnic groups are somewhat overrepresented in certain crime areas:
Ex-Yugoslavians/Albanians, Pakistanis, Somalians, Vietnamese.

The common denominator between all these diverse groups is that they are also heavily overrepresented in the lower socioeconomic classes.

To give a certain historical view on the matter:
Up to the 1950's/1960's, the aboriginal population in Northern Norway (Lapplanders/Samii a completely different "race" than Norwegians at large), was one of the primary groups with highest crime rates.
It was also one of the poorest.
Today, the economic distinction between Lapplanders and "Norwegians" is largely gone;
and so has the differential crime rates..

 

[BlackVision]

(my emphasis)I am trying to understand the relevance of the US stats you quoted to the other ~95% of the people in the world. Your answer to my first question was to say that "the same racial gaps exists in every country", so I was curious as to what these 'racial gaps' which exist in 'every country' are.

Melting pot countries that have a variety of different races. USA, Canada, Australia, are melting pot countries. Several European countries have also become melting pot countries such as UK, Germany, etc. In countries, where enough of a ethnic group exists to do such a study, these gaps exist and are consistent in every country.

In every country, blacks tend to be far over represented in the crime rate, over 8 times or more of the white rate. Asian crime rate tend to be slightly lower than the white rate. These are consistent in every country.

 

[hitssquad]

Race, homicide, and the Philippines

Asian crime rate tend to be slightly lower than the white rate. These are consistent in every country.

The Philippines is number six on this International Homicide Rate Table, and has a homicide rate almost three times that of the United States.

 

[BlackVision]

The Philippines is number six on this International Homicide Rate Table, and has a homicide rate almost three times that of the United States.

I suppose I should of been more specific and said Far East Asians. China, Korea, Japanese.

The Middle East is Caucasian and have an extraordinarily high crime rate as well.

Southeast Asians wouldn't be purebreed Mongoloids. They have a mixing with the Melanesian race. Middle East is also not purebreed Caucasians and have mixing with African.

Also you need to compare with the same environment. Meaning different races in the SAME country. That's why I used melting pot countries as examples. USA, Canada, UK, etc.

P.S. And Philippines is not 6th overall. There are only 40 countries on that list. There are over 200 countries in the world. Not to mention on this list, they compare several different years. You can't compare 1991 to 1994 to 1997.

 

[Nereid]

Melting pot countries that have a variety of different races. USA, Canada, Australia, are melting pot countries. Several European countries have also become melting pot countries such as UK, Germany, etc. In countries, where enough of a ethnic group exists to do such a study, these gaps exist and are consistent in every country.

In every country, blacks tend to be far over represented in the crime rate, over 8 times or more of the white rate. Asian crime rate tend to be slightly lower than the white rate. These are consistent in every country.

Evidence? Or simply unsubstantiated racist propoganda?

 

[BlackVision]

Evidence? Or simply unsubstantiated racist propoganda?

Well there certainly is a trend. After noticing the trend, you have to ask why.

 

[Nereid]

I suppose I should of been more specific and said Far East Asians. China, Korea, Japanese.

The Middle East is Caucasian and have an extraordinarily high crime rate as well.

Southeast Asians wouldn't be purebreed Mongoloids. They have a mixing with the Melanesian race. Middle East is also not purebreed Caucasians and have mixing with African.

From the link which hitssquad provided, selections (country and homicide rate (deaths per 100k)):
Colombia: 64.6
Estonia: 28.21
Taiwan: 8.12 (in east Asia last time I looked)
US: 5.7
Italy: 2.25
Canada: 2.16
Australia: 1.86
S Korea: 1.62
England/Wales: 1.41
Germany: 1.17
Kuwait: 1.01

Maybe Colombia and Estonia have recently suffered a huge influx of Middle East Caucasians? Or the US is overflowing with Taiwanese gangsters?

 

[BlackVision]

From the link which hitssquad provided, selections (country and homicide rate (deaths per 100k)):
Colombia: 64.6
Estonia: 28.21
Taiwan: 8.12 (in east Asia last time I looked)
US: 5.7
Italy: 2.25
Canada: 2.16
Australia: 1.86
S Korea: 1.62
England/Wales: 1.41
Germany: 1.17
Kuwait: 1.01

Maybe Colombia and Estonia have recently suffered a huge influx of Middle East Caucasians? Or the US is overflowing with Taiwanese gangsters?

I don't think you can compare the political and economical structure of Taiwan to America. Taiwanese in America would have a lower crime rate than Whites.

Estonia is a recovering communism country, I'm sure that has an effect.

But the point was that in every melting pot country. (USA, Canada, UK, etc) Every country that has a mix of different ethnic races. The asian, white, black holds. With a small gap between asian and whites and a huge one between whites and blacks. Unless you can name a country where this doesn't hold true.

Also these aren't the most accurate statistics for country comparisions I've seen.

 

[Nereid]

I don't think you can compare the political and economical structure of Taiwan to America. Taiwanese in America would have a lower crime rate than Whites.

Evidence?

Estonia is a recovering communism [sic] country, I'm sure that has an effect.

Maybe we could make up an 'excuse' for every country which doesn't fit any proposed effect?

But the point was that in every melting pot country. (USA, Canada, UK, etc) Every country that has a mix of different ethnic races. The asian, white, black holds. With a small gap between asian and whites and a huge one between whites and blacks. Unless you can name a country where this doesn't hold true.

So are we talking about 'races', 'ethnic groups', or 'ethnic races'? Maybe you'd like to propose a definition so that we can have a consistent discussion? In particular, especially given the inconsistency and confusion in your previous posts, what are 'asian', 'black' and 'white'?

In terms of a discussion, your suggestion is the classic debating technique of 'burden shifting': it's *your assertion* that these gaps exist, so the burden is upon *you* to provide evidence to support your claim. This is how it works in astronomy (the area of science I'm most familiar with), and I'm sure in all the sciences.

Also these aren't the most accurate statistics for country comparisions I've seen.

Please supply better ones then.

 

[Nereid]

Well there certainly is a trend. After noticing the trend, you have to ask why.

What trend?

A statement without supporting evidence is interesting; a racist claim without supporting evidence is likely to attract heated responses, but little in the way of informed debate.

 

[BlackVision]

Ok first off you would have to equalize the environment. Comparing America to Russia does not work. My original point was that gaps exist WITHIN a country. I never brought this country to country comparision into the debate. Mainly cause the political and economical structure from country to country is excessively drastic to warrant any fair comparison. So I don't have a prove a thing in this retrospect.

White is anyone of the Caucasian race. This does include the Middle East and this group will inflate the score if there's a heavy surplus of them. (UK groups Middle East with Asian however) Asian is Far East and the Southeast Race. The Southeast will inflate the score. Black is the Sub-Sahara race. From what I know there isn't a particular Sub-Sahara group that will inflate the score and is quite even across the board.

You're right the burden is on me to support evidence for the gap and I did just that. Comparison of white, asian, blacks in countries that have these volumes. I provided US and United Kingdom. The same gap exists in Australia, Canada, and other countries that have volumes of these races. I have seen statistics for these countries before and will post them once I find them again. But like i said WITHIN a country, the gaps are very consistent.

 

[BlackVision]

http://www.hometown.aol.com/pawnseek45/englandcrime.jpg

 

[Moonbear]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif

Homicide Offense Rate by Race (1976-2000):

White 5.1 per 100,000
Blacks 39.3 per 100,000
Others: 5.2 per 100,000

Homicide Victim Rate by Race: (1976-2000):

Whites: 5.0 per 100,000
Blacks: 31.9 per 100,000
Others: 4.9 per 100,000

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Male: 16.7 per 100,000
Female: 2.2 per 100,000

Source: US Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm

How exactly are these statistics calculated? Things don't add up at all. First, there are more offenders than victims. How do you get more people committing homicide than who have been killed, especially when you factor in multiple-homicides, serial or repeat offenders, and unsolved crimes?

Second, why is the total rate of homicide by race adding up to 49.6 per 100,000, but when broken down by sex, only adds up to 18.0 per 100,000. That's 30.7 homicides per 100,000 not accounted for as committed by either men or women...do we have a third sex I don't know about?

The other problem with these sorts of statistics is they are based on conviction rates. If someone isn't proven to have committed homicide, then they can't be included in the stats. So, this could simply reflect a societal bias toward arresting and convicting blacks over whites or asians.

What happens if you break down homicide rate by local population density and do a covariate analysis of population density by race? Seems that thanks to government housing projects of a few decades ago, crowded inner-cities are highly populated by blacks. The greater the population density in an area, the greater the likelihood of conflict escalating to violence. Of the whites committing homicide (and being convicted), how many of them live in the same type of environment? I don't have stats, I'm just asking, because I'd bet that a white person growing up in an inner city would have just as much likelihood as a black person to commit a violent crime, or any crime, whereas a black person growing up in a suburban, upscale neighborhood is going to have a much decreased likelihood of committing a violent crime, comparable to the rate of whites in the same neighborhood.

 

[Andre]

Wow, we're at the end of page two already talking about heavy racial matters and not a single fallacy attack yet about the high political incorrectness.

BTW there are no human races.

 

[Moonbear]

It occurred to me that my confusion over those stats is that the numbers are percentages within each population, so the 5.1 homicides per 100,000 means 5.1 whites commit homicides out of every 100,000 whites, not out of every 100,000 people living in the US.

The latter part of my questions, regarding the relationship between population density, more people to bump into in a day, so more chance for conflict and for that conflict to escalate to violence, is something I still would like to see answered. That certainly is something that can also be addressed across more countries, looking at homicide rates based on population density, as my prediction is that density is more predictive of homicide rates than the races comprising that population.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought this question deserved a response:

Any statistics in terms of socio-economic class?

Its (and the nature of the cause/effect relationship) is critical.

 

[BlackVision]

How exactly are these statistics calculated? Things don't add up at all. First, there are more offenders than victims. How do you get more people committing homicide than who have been killed, especially when you factor in multiple-homicides, serial or repeat offenders, and unsolved crimes?

Very often times multiple people are charged for 1 homicide. One that gets 1st degree, another that gets 2nd degree for aiding it, etc etc.

Second, why is the total rate of homicide by race adding up to 49.6 per 100,000, but when broken down by sex, only adds up to 18.0 per 100,000. That's 30.7 homicides per 100,000 not accounted for as committed by either men or women...do we have a third sex I don't know about?

These are AVERAGE statistics per 100,000 population. Since it's 16.7 per 100,000 for men and 2.2 per 100,000 for women, the average becomes roughly 9.45 per 100,000.

The other problem with these sorts of statistics is they are based on conviction rates. If someone isn't proven to have committed homicide, then they can't be included in the stats. So, this could simply reflect a societal bias toward arresting and convicting blacks over whites or asians.

The bias argument tends to fail when the victim homicide rate is close to identical to the offender's homicide rate.

What happens if you break down homicide rate by local population density and do a covariate analysis of population density by race? Seems that thanks to government housing projects of a few decades ago, crowded inner-cities are highly populated by blacks. The greater the population density in an area, the greater the likelihood of conflict escalating to violence. Of the whites committing homicide (and being convicted), how many of them live in the same type of environment? I don't have stats, I'm just asking, because I'd bet that a white person growing up in an inner city would have just as much likelihood as a black person to commit a violent crime, or any crime, whereas a black person growing up in a suburban, upscale neighborhood is going to have a much decreased likelihood of committing a violent crime, comparable to the rate of whites in the same neighborhood.

New Orleans: [/color]
Population: 484,674

Ethnicity:
White: 27%
Black: 67%
Hispanic: 3%
Asian 2%

Homicide rate:[/color] 53.3 per 100,000


Washington DC[/color]
Population: 572,059

Ethnicity:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 45.82 per 100,000



Seattle: [/color]
Population: 563,374

Ethnicity:
White: 68%
Black: 8%
Hispanic: 5%
Asian: 13%

Homicide rate:[/color] 4.43 per 100,000


Portland: [/color]
Population: 529,121

Ethnicity:
White: 75%
Black: 7%
Hispanic: 7%
Asian: 6%

Homicide rate:[/color] 4.34 per 100,000

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20030616-093406-7084r.htm
http://statestats.com/

 

[hitssquad]

Testosterone and threshold for violence

I'd bet that a white person growing up in an inner city would have just as much likelihood as a black person to commit a violent crime, or any crime, whereas a black person growing up in a suburban, upscale neighborhood is going to have a much decreased likelihood of committing a violent crime, comparable to the rate of whites in the same neighborhood.

IIRC, Lynn and Rushton have proposed that:

1. Testosterone level correlates inversely with threshold for violence
   
   
2. Blacks tend to have higher testosterone levels than Whites

And, on this point, it is interesting to note that males growing up in the same neighborhoods as females, virtually everywhere, tend to suffer higher rates of commission of violent crimes.

 

[Nereid]

http://www.hometown.aol.com/pawnseek45/englandcrime.jpg

Some data at last!

Some questions:
- what has this data got to do with homocides? At first glance it seems to be the numbers of people, per 100k population, who are in prison (and surely not everyone in prison in the UK is there for one of the crimes called 'homocide'!)
- has the data been analysed for the age effect? In DarkVision's post at the start of this thread, there is clearly a strong age effect: young men appear to have a far, far higher incidence of homocide than other groups. If the various groups in DarkVision's posted UK data have significantly different age (or sex) structures, then direct comparison is not very interesting
- how do 'Black Caribbean', 'Black African' and 'Black Other' relate to 'black' in DarkVision's US data? My guess is, 'only tenuously', given the very different history of, and reasons for, 'black immigration' into the US and UK.

 

[Nereid]

White is anyone of the Caucasian race. This does include the Middle East and this group will inflate the score if there's a heavy surplus of them. (UK groups Middle East with Asian however) Asian is Far East and the Southeast Race. The Southeast will inflate the score. Black is the Sub-Sahara race. From what I know there isn't a particular Sub-Sahara group that will inflate the score and is quite even across the board.

What is 'the Caucasian race'? 'Far East and the Southeast Race'? 'Sub-Sahara race'?

You may not have attempted to provide a comprehensive set of such (R)races, but in case you did, to which do the original inhabitants of the following islands and continents belong?
- New Guinea
- Tasmania
- New Zealand
- Taiwan
- Hawaii
- North America
- South America

You're right the burden is on me to support evidence for the gap and I did just that. Comparison of white, asian, blacks in countries that have these volumes. I provided US and United Kingdom. The same gap exists in Australia, Canada, and other countries that have volumes of these races. I have seen statistics for these countries before and will post them once I find them again. But like i said WITHIN a country, the gaps are very consistent.

Here is the list of 'Ethnic groups' for Canada and Australia (from the source you provided); please identify which belong to which '(R)race':
Canada: "British Isles origin, French origin, other European, Amerindian, other, mostly Asian, African, Arab, mixed background"
Australia: "Caucasian, Asian, aboriginal and other"

What 'other countries' have 'volumes of these races'?

 

[Nereid]

IIRC, Lynn and Rushton have proposed that:

1. Testosterone level correlates inversely with threshold for violence
   
   
2. Blacks tend to have higher testosterone levels than Whites

And, on this point, it is interesting to note that males growing up in the same neighborhoods as females, virtually everywhere, tend to suffer higher rates of commission of violent crimes.

Easy enough to test hitssquad, what is the relationship between testosterone level and violence in females?

Also, why is this relevant? I mean, is there a tight, well-documented relationship between violence threshholds and homocide (in the US)?

 

[Nereid]

What is 'homicide'?

DarkVision began this thread with data on 'homicide', and later mentioned that it refers to the US only. DarkVision later seemed to talk (inconsistently) about crime, incarceration, and homicide.

So I'm wondering, to what extent is 'homicide' itself a sociological phenomenon? I mean, when a US Marine kills an Iraqi 'soldier' or an Afghan 'terrorist', is he committing 'homicide'? What about the people who executed Timothy McVeigh, did they commit 'homicide'? How about doctors whose sloppiness or inattention results in the death of the patient? The drunk whose car he is driving kills a cyclist? And what are we to call the senior managers of tobacco companies who continued to enrich themselves by 'extending the market' for their products, knowing full well that their activities would inevitably result in the deaths of millions?

 

[selfAdjoint]

And does "homocide" mean killing homosexuals, as it seems to? Homicide, on the other hand is defined (slightly differently) in the laws of every state of the US and the Federal code, and in the codes of all the nation states. When they report homicides, they are presumably using the definitions in their codes. This means a slightly various population of course, since what is a homicide over here might not be over there and vice versa.

 

[Nereid]

Good points selfAdjoint. IIRC, there was a case in the US a few years ago ... some mine (or company) owner (or manager) was convicted of murder ... he (it was a 'he', don't know if white, black, or purple) was responsible for allowing (forcing?) some of his employees to work in conditions that he knew were unsafe (deadly?), and at least one died. Analogous 'industrial accidents' in the UK apparently result in mere loss of employment (I recall a particularly nasty case a few years ago involving a malfunctioning industrial oven), not even jail time.

Similarly, in China some time ago, there was a horrifying case of babies being killed through the inattention of their carers ... those responsible who didn't commit suicide were executed ... for murder. If there were such a case in the UK, or anywhere in Europe, I doubt that murder charges would even be laid, let alone proven in a court of law.

And we haven't even started to look at infanticide, 'honour killing', the death of young wives in all-to-frequent 'kitchen accidents' (look up 'dowry'), ...

 

[Moonbear]

In this article:

Gapstur SM, Gann PH, Kopp P, Colangelo L, Longcope C, Liu K. Serum androgen concentrations in young men: a longitudinal analysis of associations with age, obesity, and race. The CARDIA male hormone study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Oct;11(10 Pt 1):1041-7.

The authors conclude:

"Challenging the concept of differences in testosterone levels between black and white men, our results also indicate no differences in serum testosterone or SHBG concentrations after adjustment for age, BMI, and waist circumference."

Also, when I was asking about population density, I didn't mean the whole city, I meant in the "neighborhoods" where the homicides are being committed. Every city has diversity of neighborhoods and different population densities associated with those neighborhoods. I happen to live in a more suburban part of a city with about a 50/50 black/white ratio (not to many other races or ethnicities represented in my neighborhood...a few, but negligible), and it's a VERY safe neighborhood. On the other hand, there is a section of the city where there are lots of apartments, no backyards for the kids to play in, if you looked at the number of people/acre (or some other convenient measure of property size), it would be much higher than my neighborhood. There also happens to be much higher crime rates in that area...the sort of place I wouldn't walk alone at night, and maybe not in the daylight either. Even in the part of the city where I live, there is an apartment complex fairly close to my neighborhood, similar black/white ratio there, yet much higher crime rates. Now, this could be a socioeconomic issue, that poorer people live in apartments and the relative poverty contributes toward tendencies to commit crimes, or it could be a population density issue...too many neighbors, no place to go to get some space, more likely to run into someone you're not going to get along with.

BlackVision, it's interesting that you don't understand the statistics you are using to support your claims. Just two posts after my first one, I pointed out that I realized my error in understanding the crime rates, yet your post introduces a whole new set of errors. You can't take the rate for men and the rate for women and average them together to get the rate for the population!

Nereid, while I have my suspicions of BlackVision's agenda in presenting these statistics, I'm not opposed to him/her limiting the discussion to racial differences in the U.S., for the very reasons you're pointing out...there are different societal definitions of homicide in every country, as well as different cultural pressures. I don't believe that the higher rate of homicide convictions for blacks is just because they are black, but due to problems in our own society in the environment in which blacks live and the way they are treated. If we are going to identify and address these problems, we need to first acknowledge they exist. The data are not in question, the interpretation is.

 

[BlackVision]

DarkVision began this thread with data on 'homicide', and later mentioned that it refers to the US only. DarkVision later seemed to talk (inconsistently) about crime, incarceration, and homicide.

Ok why do certain people consistently try to misinterpret what I'm saying. Yes it originally started out with homicide but it's crime in general. Notice right after that post, I quoted an article, which lists rape and robbery statistics that correspend to the homicide rate of blacks.

And here is my one and ONLY point. The asian, white, and black gaps are consistent WITHIN any country that has enough of each of these populations in order to conduct a study. Now if you feel I am wrong about this, you may name a country in this world where this does not hold true. Again you need to pick a country that actually has these populations and not a homogeneous one.

 

[BlackVision]

In this article:

Gapstur SM, Gann PH, Kopp P, Colangelo L, Longcope C, Liu K. Serum androgen concentrations in young men: a longitudinal analysis of associations with age, obesity, and race. The CARDIA male hormone study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Oct;11(10 Pt 1):1041-7.

The authors conclude:

"Challenging the concept of differences in testosterone levels between black and white men, our results also indicate no differences in serum testosterone or SHBG concentrations after adjustment for age, BMI, and waist circumference."

This is flawed. Age, I can understand. How can you balance for waist circumference. I mean the higher testosterone level is probably RESPONSIBLE for the waist circumference. This is like saying, "there are no height differences in between men and women after adjusting for hand sizes, feet sizes, and waist sizes" An example of how one manipulates statistics.

Also, when I was asking about population density, I didn't mean the whole city, I meant in the "neighborhoods" where the homicides are being committed. Every city has diversity of neighborhoods and different population densities associated with those neighborhoods. I happen to live in a more suburban part of a city with about a 50/50 black/white ratio (not to many other races or ethnicities represented in my neighborhood...a few, but negligible), and it's a VERY safe neighborhood. On the other hand, there is a section of the city where there are lots of apartments, no backyards for the kids to play in, if you looked at the number of people/acre (or some other convenient measure of property size), it would be much higher than my neighborhood. There also happens to be much higher crime rates in that area...the sort of place I wouldn't walk alone at night, and maybe not in the daylight either. Even in the part of the city where I live, there is an apartment complex fairly close to my neighborhood, similar black/white ratio there, yet much higher crime rates. Now, this could be a socioeconomic issue, that poorer people live in apartments and the relative poverty contributes toward tendencies to commit crimes, or it could be a population density issue...too many neighbors, no place to go to get some space, more likely to run into someone you're not going to get along with.

Ok but the overall population density of these cities are equal is it not? So in the end shouldn't it balance out? Also New York probably has more apartments than any city in America, most people in New York live in apartments but New York doesn't have the crime rate that DC does. Not even close. Wouldn't you agree that New York is more packed than DC is?

BlackVision, it's interesting that you don't understand the statistics you are using to support your claims. Just two posts after my first one, I pointed out that I realized my error in understanding the crime rates, yet your post introduces a whole new set of errors. You can't take the rate for men and the rate for women and average them together to get the rate for the population!

Ok you didn't click on my link did you? If you did, you would have found this:

Men: 16.7 per 100,000
Women: 2.2 per 100,000
ALL: 9.2 per 100,000

Notice that the total homicide rate is pretty much right in between men and women.

Here you can check it again.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm#longterm

The data are not in question, the interpretation is.

A common consensus. That's a start.

 

[hitssquad]

How to calculate overall rates from rates among subpopulations

Men: 16.7 per 100,000
Women: 2.2 per 100,000
ALL: 9.2 per 100,000

Notice that the total homicide rate is pretty much right in between men and women.

I would have said it was almost the average, or arithmetic mean, of the two subpopulation rates. But in order to calculate a total rate from among multiple population categories with varying size proportions within a total population, accountance must be made for those size variances. Since females typically generally constitute slight majorities of national populations, that might just account for the difference between the 9.2 per 100,000 figure above and the 9.45 per 100,000 figure one would arrive at by calculating the arithmetic mean with the assumption that the two subpopulations are evenly represented relative to each other in the total population.

 

[Nereid]

Ok why do certain people consistently try to misinterpret what I'm saying. Yes it originally started out with homicide but it's crime in general. Notice right after that post, I quoted an article, which lists rape and robbery statistics that correspend to the homicide rate of blacks.

And here is my one and ONLY point. The asian, white, and black gaps are consistent WITHIN any country that has enough of each of these populations in order to conduct a study. Now if you feel I am wrong about this, you may name a country in this world where this does not hold true. Again you need to pick a country that actually has these populations and not a homogeneous one.

Thank you for the clarification.

You've provided some data for the US, and I'd like to return to discuss that later, in terms of your assertion.

However, I'd first like more clarification of "The asian, white, and black gaps are consistent WITHIN any country that has enough of each of these populations in order to conduct a study[/color]" You stated earlier that your interest was in 'melting pot countries', and you gave the US, Canada, and Australia as such; later you also included the UK, and indicated that there were more. You also provide some statistics on incarceration rates in the UK. You defined what you meant by the terms 'asian', 'black', and 'white'.

I asked you to further clarify your definitions of asian (etc), and to provide data on the numbers (or proportions) of each of these groups in Canada and Australia (and any other countries you feel are 'melting pot countries'). I am still waiting for answers.

Now I would like to ask you: how do you intend to interpret the data from each of the countries? In particular, are you looking to draw conclusions across countries, or only within countries?

 

[Moonbear]

This is flawed. Age, I can understand. How can you balance for waist circumference. I mean the higher testosterone level is probably RESPONSIBLE for the waist circumference. This is like saying, "there are no height differences in between men and women after adjusting for hand sizes, feet sizes, and waist sizes" An example of how one manipulates statistics.

Actually, that's not correct. Testosterone in males increases lean muscle mass, not fat (that's the reason body builders take anabolic steroids...if it increased fat, that wouldn't be very useful). Also, it's a valid assertion that having a higher body fat content (that's what waist circumference reflects) would lead to higher circulating testosterone concentrations. Testosterone, as well as other steroid hormones, is stored in fat, so obese subjects (same for other animals, not just humans) would have a "reservoir" of testosterone that is metabolized more slowly than lean subjects. The other reason I chose that particular study is that it is a neutral study, not focused on testosterone for some racist agenda, but instead had assumed testosterone would be different and was testing whether it was as risk factor for prostate cancer in African-Americans. This finding actually disproved the authors' hypothesis. If the authors wanted to manipulate statistics, they'd have ignored this relationship because it would have better fit their hypothesis.

Regardless, I had pasted in their conclusions, but here is the section of the results dealing with the UNADJUSTED results rather than the adjusted results. This is from the same study I cited previously, Gapstur et al., 2002.

"Unadjusted mean total testosterone, SHBG, and free-testosterone concentrations were not statistically significantly different between blacks and whites at any examination (Table 1) , except at Year 10, blacks had slightly higher levels (0.0063 ng/ml; P = 0.05) of free testosterone than whites. From the Year 2 to the Year 10 examinations, the concentrations of total and free testosterone were reduced by a similar magnitude for both black and white men."

I should point out that this difference detected only in year 10 of the study is not a biologically meaningful difference. I was actually surprised it came up significant because that amount of variation can often be accounted for simply by inter-assay variation (the means were 0.16 vs 0.15 ng/ml for blacks vs whites; in year 2 of the study, both groups had means of 0.17, so a mean concentration of 0.16 is not different from the amount found in whites during their lifetime either). They must have had a fantastic tech running their assays for such a small difference to be detected as significant. There is a difference between statistical significance and biological relevance. This is also only for free testosterone, not total testosterone (which means testosterone not bound by sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG)). It would take a lot more testosterone than that to cause a difference in aggression. Keep in mind these are circulating concentrations (what's found in the blood), not the amount that gets past the blood-brain barrier where behavior is affected.

 

[BlackVision]

The other reason I chose that particular study is that it is a neutral study

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. It is a politically correct study. With an agenda to give "happy results" not accurate results. Like I said, if I wanted to create "happy results" to say men and women have the same height, I would say "after balancing for hand sizes, feet sizes, waist circumference, there is no height differences between men and women" Which if done, I promise you, will close the gap to near nil, if not nil.

Actually, that's not correct. Testosterone in males increases lean muscle mass, not fat (that's the reason body builders take anabolic steroids...if it increased fat, that wouldn't be very useful). Also, it's a valid assertion that having a higher body fat content (that's what waist circumference reflects) would lead to higher circulating testosterone concentrations. Testosterone, as well as other steroid hormones, is stored in fat, so obese subjects (same for other animals, not just humans) would have a "reservoir" of testosterone that is metabolized more slowly than lean subjects. The other reason I chose that particular study is that it is a neutral study, not focused on testosterone for some racist agenda, but instead had assumed testosterone would be different and was testing whether it was as risk factor for prostate cancer in African-Americans. This finding actually disproved the authors' hypothesis. If the authors wanted to manipulate statistics, they'd have ignored this relationship because it would have better fit their hypothesis.

Regardless, I had pasted in their conclusions, but here is the section of the results dealing with the UNADJUSTED results rather than the adjusted results. This is from the same study I cited previously, Gapstur et al., 2002.

"Unadjusted mean total testosterone, SHBG, and free-testosterone concentrations were not statistically significantly different between blacks and whites at any examination (Table 1) , except at Year 10, blacks had slightly higher levels (0.0063 ng/ml; P = 0.05) of free testosterone than whites. From the Year 2 to the Year 10 examinations, the concentrations of total and free testosterone were reduced by a similar magnitude for both black and white men."

I should point out that this difference detected only in year 10 of the study is not a biologically meaningful difference. I was actually surprised it came up significant because that amount of variation can often be accounted for simply by inter-assay variation (the means were 0.16 vs 0.15 ng/ml for blacks vs whites; in year 2 of the study, both groups had means of 0.17, so a mean concentration of 0.16 is not different from the amount found in whites during their lifetime either). They must have had a fantastic tech running their assays for such a small difference to be detected as significant. There is a difference between statistical significance and biological relevance. This is also only for free testosterone, not total testosterone (which means testosterone not bound by sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG)). It would take a lot more testosterone than that to cause a difference in aggression. Keep in mind these are circulating concentrations (what's found in the blood), not the amount that gets past the blood-brain barrier where behavior is affected.

And yet all the signs of higher testostereone level is present in blacks. Higher level of athletic ability. Bigger dicks. More aggression. Faster body development.

But there are always politically correct people that manipulates things here and there to try to create "happy results" instead of using proper science and giving accurate ones.

J Rushton has wrote a good study on this in his book. Although you probably will think it as a "racist" agenda while others will say it's politically incorrect yet correct information.

 

[Nereid]

First, a comment or three on this 'testosterone level':
- if it does have a relationship to anything significant to this discussion on the relative proportions of 'white', 'black', and 'asian' people (men, actually) who are convicted of 'crimes' in the US, then there are surely some easy answers from that field of science known as 'medicine'
- aren't there disorders (conditions, whatever) which give rise to either an absence of testosterone, or massively elevated levels? If so, are the wretched folk so afflicted glaringly lacking in all tendency to violence, or utterly uncontrollable? If not, then the testosterone-violence relationship can only be quite subtle
- do young men (whatever 'race') have massively elevated levels of testosterone (compared to children and older men)? If not, the apparent substantially increased levels of 'criminality' in young men cannot be directly attributable to testosterone
- if any testosterone-violence link can be demonstrated, but is quite weak, then that serves, at best, to play only a minor role in any 'race' differences in 'criminality.

Next: (see next post)

 

[Nereid]

what is 'criminality'?

DarkVision began this thread talking about the incidence of 'homicide' in the US, but quickly clarified his (her?) intent as 'criminality' (my word) and 'race', specifically, 'white', 'black', and 'asian'.

To have a decent discussion, surely we should first have a common understanding of the key terms?

DarkVision (since these are your assertions that we are discussing): what do you mean by 'white', 'black', and 'asian', first in the context of the US? What is your measure of the 'criminality' (or whatever term you wish to use) that you are seeking to determine for each 'race'?

 

[BlackVision]

Ok first, why are you keep calling me DarkVision?

Second, for the US, these are the definitions of race as used by the US Census Bureau and other government agencies.

Race Definition:[/color]

The concept of race as used by the Census Bureau reflects self-identification by people according to the race or races with which they most closely identify. These categories are sociopolitical constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. Furthermore, the race categories include both racial and national-origin groups.

The racial classifications used by the Census Bureau adhere to the October 30,1997, Federal Register Notice entitled,"Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity" issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish.

Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.

American Indian and Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.

Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes "Asian Indian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Japanese," "Vietnamese," and "Other Asian."

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who indicate their race as "Native Hawaiian," "Guamanian or Chamorro," "Samoan," and "Other Pacific Islander."

Some other race. Includes all other responses not included in the "White", "Black or African American", "American Indian and Alaska Native", "Asian" and "Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander" race categories described above. Respondents providing write-in entries such as multiracial, mixed, interracial, Wesort, or a Hispanic/Latino group (for example, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Cuban) in the "Some other race" category are included here.

Two or more races. People may have chosen to provide two or more races either by checking two or more race response check boxes, by providing multiple write-in responses, or by some combination of check boxes and write-in responses.

 

[BlackVision]

- do young men (whatever 'race') have massively elevated levels of testosterone (compared to children and older men)? If not, the apparent substantially increased levels of 'criminality' in young men cannot be directly attributable to testosterone

Yes young men have higher testosterone levels than children and older men. The period of your highest testosterone level is also the period of your highest sex drive. Most likely from your teens and throughout your 20s.

 

[Nereid]

BlackVision (not DarkVision): A mistake, I'll try to be more careful in future.

So if some 'criminal' chooses to say they have (are?) more than one race, is their 'crime' recorded as having been perpetrated under all self-declared races?

 

[BlackVision]

BlackVision (not DarkVision): A mistake, I'll try to be more careful in future.

So if some 'criminal' chooses to say they have (are?) more than one race, is their 'crime' recorded as having been perpetrated under all self-declared races?

There are a number of factors that causes criminal behavior. Testosterone level would be one of them. Certainly not in all aspects a bad hormone. This magical hormone does many things. It gives you a sex drive, it allows you to build muscle mass, as well as other so called "male" characteristics. One of them is aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior would often even be positive. It allows you to be more competitive which is great as long as you have it under control. But this aggressive behavior often times turns criminal.

80-90% of homicides are commited by men. It's hard to make a case for environment being the main cause of it. Men are much more aggressive than their female counterparts. That magical male hormone testosterone probably responsible for it.

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

 

[BlackVision]

And oh yeah to your question, if a person is of mixed races, then it will likely be listed as whatever race that person considers themselves. Kinda like the Census Bureau I suppose.

 

[Moonbear]

There are a number of factors that causes criminal behavior. Testosterone level would be one of them. Certainly not in all aspects a bad hormone. This magical hormone does many things. It gives you a sex drive, it allows you to build muscle mass, as well as other so called "male" characteristics. One of them is aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior would often even be positive. It allows you to be more competitive which is great as long as you have it under control. But this aggressive behavior often times turns criminal.

80-90% of homicides are commited by men. It's hard to make a case for environment being the main cause of it. Men are much more aggressive than their female counterparts. That magical male hormone testosterone probably responsible for it.

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

The differences in testosterone between the blacks and whites in that study I cited (which was only different at one timepoint) are not sufficient to induce differences in aggression. Keep in mind, it wasn't total testosterone that differed, only free testosterone, and only by a very, very small amount.

Here is another reference on male aggression and testosterone (I'm pasting in the abstract, you can read the full article for yourself):

Physiol Behav. 2002 Apr 1;75(4):557-66.
**
Exogenous testosterone, aggression, and mood in eugonadal and hypogonadal men.
O'Connor DB, Archer J, Hair WM, Wu FC.
Department of Endocrinology, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manchester M13 9WL, UK. daryloc@psychology.leeds.ac.uk
To investigate (1) the effects of exogenous testosterone (T) on self- and partner-reported aggression and mood and (2) the role of trait impulsivity in the T-aggression relationship. Thirty eugonadal men with partners were randomized into two treatment groups to receive: (1) 200 mg I am T enanthate weekly for 8 weeks or (2) 200 mg I am sodium chloride weekly for 8 weeks. Eight hypogonadal men received 200 mg I am T enanthate biweekly for 8 weeks. All groups completed a battery of behavior measures at baseline (Week 0) and at Weeks 4 and 8. Cognitive and motor impulsivity were the only predictors of self-reported total aggression (over and above age and T levels) at Weeks 0, 4, and 8. No significant changes in aggression or mood levels were found in the eugonadal-treated group. Significant reductions in negative mood (tension, anger, and fatigue) followed by an increase in vigor were found in response to T treatment in the hypogonadal group. These results demonstrate that inability to control one's behavior when such control is required by a particular situation (impulsivity) was found to significantly predict levels of aggression over and above age and T level. These data do not support the hypothesis that supraphysiological levels of T (within this range) lead to an increase in self- and partner-reported aggression or mood disturbances. Instead, for the first time, this study has identified the high level of negative affect experienced by hypogonadal patients. These findings have implications for T replacement therapy and male contraception.

Also note that there are disorders in women in which androgen concentrations are elevated. For example, in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), women have very elevated testosterone concentrations. These women are not more aggressive than other women.

 

[Nereid]

Yes young men have higher testosterone levels than children and older men. The period of your highest testosterone level is also the period of your highest sex drive. Most likely from your teens and throughout your 20s.

I am given to understand that it may be different for me (http://webhome.idirect.com/~donlong/monsters/Html/Nereid.htm : "daughters of the nymph Doris and of Nereus")

 

[Moonbear]

Now do certain races have a higher median level of testosterone than others? If this is the case, the pattern of higher aggressive behavior should be visible.

I already provided evidence that this is not the case. That you chose to ignore it and instead claim it is just "PC" is not my problem. I again point out that study I referred to was EXPECTING to find a difference and to use it to support their hypothesis, therefore, that they did not find a difference was not in any way helpful to them or fulfilling some PC agenda.

You should also be aware that daily fluctuations in testosterone are much greater than those differences in testosterone observed between the races. Further, the PEAK in testosterone in men occurs at about 7 AM, with the lowest levels at about 10 PM. When do most crimes occur? If you can show me credible statistics that most homocides, or crimes, occur around 7 AM, then I may concede testosterone is associate with this. If, however, more homocides, or crimes (since it's still not clear to me if we're discussing only homocide or all crime rates) happen in the evening, then there's a problem with your prediction that small differences in testosterone concentrations are responsible. Here is another reference and abstract supporting the time of day difference (also has a nice graph of differences between young and middle-aged men in testosterone concentrations...note that the daily nadir for the young men is lower than the daily peak for middle-aged men, so even though middle-aged men have overall lower testosterone than young men, this would predict that middle-aged men would still have high enough testosterone in the mornings to commit crimes at that time of day.

Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2003 Jun;58(6):710-7.
**
Diurnal rhythms of serum total, free and bioavailable testosterone and of SHBG in middle-aged men compared with those in young men.
Diver MJ, Imtiaz KE, Ahmad AM, Vora JP, Fraser WD.
Department of Clinical Chemistry, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK. mjdiver@liv.ac.uk
BACKGROUND: Conflicting views are reported on the association between advancing age and gradually diminishing concentrations of serum total testosterone in men. The putative loss of diurnal rhythm in serum total testosterone in older men is reported to be in part due to low concentrations in the morning when compared to concentrations found in young men. We have measured total, free and bioavailable testosterone along with SHBG in samples taken every 30 min throughout a 24-h period in 10 young and eight middle-aged men. RESULTS: Both young and middle-aged men displayed a significant diurnal rhythm in all variables, with a minimum fall of 43% in total testosterone from peak to nadir in all subjects. Subjecting the data to a time series analysis by least squares estimation revealed no significant difference in mesor (P = 0.306), amplitude (P = 0.061) or acrophase (P = 0.972) for total testosterone between the two groups. Comparing bioavailable testosterone in the two groups revealed no significant difference in mesor (P = 0.175) or acrophase (P = 0.978) but a significant difference (P = 0.031) in amplitude. Both groups display a significant circadian rhythm (middle-aged group P < 0.001; young group P = 0.014). Free testosterone revealed a highly significant rhythm in both the young group (P < 0.001) and the middle-aged group (P = 0.002), with no significant difference between the groups in mesor (P = 0.094) or acrophase (P = 0.698). Although analysis of the SHBG data revealed a significant rhythm in the young group (P = 0.003) and the older group (P < 0.001), the acrophase occurred in the mid afternoon in both groups (15.12 h in the young and 15.40 h in the middle-aged). The older men had a significantly greater amplitude (P = 0.044) but again no significant difference was seen in mesor (P = 0.083) or acrophase (P = 0.477) between the two groups. Acrophases for total, bioavailable and free testosterone occurred between 07.00 h and 07.30 h; for SHBG the acrophase occurred at 15.12 h in the young group and 15.40 h in the middle-aged group. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that the diurnal rhythm in these indices of androgen status is maintained in fit, healthy men into the 7th decade of life.