Homicide Statistics by Race & Gender

[Nereid]

Once again, simply stating it's racist, doesn't make it so. And yes the trend is quite global. I provided 2 countries which directly corresponded with each other. And there's tons of articles on others, just google for them. How many did you provide? Oh yes zero. When you attempt to refute, you should at least bring in some countering statistics which you are yet to do.

Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.

Isn't Hispanic very mixed? Hispanic by definition are heavily mixed of 3 primary races. So the fact that "some" Americans are heavily mixed are of absolute no surprise. White Americans and probably Asian Americans mixing rate is not heavily significant. Blacks do have about a 20% mixture rate but are still predominately African in descent.

Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'

I have provided evidence to support my one and only statement. Can you say the same for you? You are yet to give a single countering statistic to refute any claims. If what I stated is false, I would be completely bombarded by everyone saying "no no this is not true, here are statistics for this country" Is that yet to happen? Are you yet to do this? Why is that there is absolutely ZERO evidence that you brought to the table?

Here is some info on how the 2001 Australian census was conducted; note the terms 'ancestry' and 'cultural and ethnic groups'.

What you are attempting to do is state that human races don't exist. That there are no scientific basis for it. Which is a failed attempt. Races are real and are indeed genetically based. However this plays with people's emotions becomes irrelevant.

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@census.nsf/Census_BCP_ASGC_ViewTemplate?ReadForm&Expand=1 BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"

 

[Nereid]

So let's see the data! arildno earlier provided data that the crime rates (in Norway) are related to socio-economic status, with recent migrants (of whatever ethnic origin) over-represented due to their immigrant status (not their ethnic origin).
Nereid 1, BlackVision 0.

Acutally SES has very little effect on SES and even after adjusting for SES, blacks have a higher crime rate. Read pages 235-251 in "The Bell Curve" They go into full depth in it and even have nifty graphs. So in all you failed to score. You didn't even make it to first base.

Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier).

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).

 

[Nereid]

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

Perhaps because http://about.dc.gov/about2.asp?

 

[Nereid]

Washington DC [/color]
Population: 572,059
Homicide Rate: 45.82 per 100,000

Oklahoma City [/color]
Population: 506,132
Homicide Rate: 7.41 per 100,000

So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

Perhaps because http://www.kiat.net/dc/ commuting workers and visitors is the best stat I could find in a quick Google search). I assume that the DC homicide rate refers to homicides committed in DC, no matter where the perp(s) or victim(s) live(d).

Maybe because "More than 359,000 people living in the metropolitan area are on the federal payroll" ... out of a population of only ~600,000 (I don't have a stat for Oklahoma City, but I rather doubt it's over 30,000).

Maybe I'm in the slow class today; isn't Oklahoma City where Timothy did his thing? Weren't 168 people killed in the bombing? Wasn't that homicide? My calculator says that 168/5.06 = 33.2. IOW, if this multiple victims, white offender homcide is included, the homicide rates for the two cities become much more equal.

 

[Nereid]

Here is a good example of why one needs to take the statistics which BlackVision provides with some skepticism:

One must remember that although UK has been admitting thousands of immigrants, it is still over 97% white.

In April 2001, the UK conducted a census, and "respondents were asked to which ethnic group they considered themselves to belong", among many other things (note: no question about 'race').

Here are the results:

Ethnic group . . . . . . Total Population . . %
White . . . . . . . . . . . 54153898 . . . . . 92.1
Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . . 677177 . . . . . . 1.2
Asian or Asian British . 2331423 . . . . . .. 4.0
Black or Black British . 1148738 . . . . . . . 2.0
Chinese . . . . . . . . . . 247403 . . . . . . . 0.4
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 230615 . . . . . . . 0.4
Total . . . . . . . . . .. 58789194

Source

 

[Nereid]

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.

In terms of the US stats which BlackVision posted, at the beginning of this thread, here are some answers (the source is one of the two links in BV's post):

"Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. Excluded are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation, as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body.

Not all agencies which report offense information to the FBI also submit supplemental data on homicides. About 91% of homicides reported in the UCR are included in the SHR. To account for the total number of homicides, this analysis weighted the SHR data to match national and State estimates prepared by the FBI. All victim-based analyses are adjusted in this manner.

While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. Ignoring unsolved homicides, of course, would seriously understate calculated rates of offending by particular subgroups of the population, distort trends over time among these same subgroups, and bias observed patterns of offending to the extent that the rate of missing offender data is associated with offender characteristics.

To adjust for unsolved homicides, a method for offender imputation has been devised ..."

Further material, also from the site BV provided a link to, details the procedures used in the SHR; methodology for the National Crime Victimization Survey, and more.

Regarding 'crime rates' (a question which Nereid had asked BV repeatedly about, only to get vague, inconsistent answers), the site has this to say:

"Launched 70 years ago, the Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects and publishes criminal offense, arrest, and law enforcement personnel statistics. Under the UCR program, law enforcement agencies submit information to the FBI monthly. Offense information is collected on the eight Index offenses of homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Information on the the number of persons arrested includes many additional crime types such as drug abuse violations and driving under the influence." Note that the kind of crimes which are alleged to have been committed in the Enron, WorldCom, etc scandals are not included. Nor is a leading cause of death in the US - drunk driving.

Finally, to 'race': as BV 'supposed', the instructions to those who provide the data (which later become the stats) are in line with the Census Bureau's definitions and approach. I haven't read enough yet to see how a) 'more than one race' answers are analysed, b) ditto 'refused to answer', c) time series are constructed (the data collection methodology changed with the CB's change in approach re 'race').

 

[Nereid]

US white homicide rate >7 times that of blacks!

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'!

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oarstab.htm

BlackVision's assertion clearly wrong, in the US, according to stats provided by BV himself!

Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?

The example above was created to show what can happen if you aren't very clear in your definitions etc.

BV's assertion, to refresh our memories: "The white, asian, black crime rate gap is consistent in each and every country where a mixture of these populations exist."

So, let's examine the data above, in light of this assertion:
"white, asian, black [...] populations": Yes, those groups exist in the US.
"in each country ... where a mixture of these populations exist": Yep, the US qualifies.
"crime rate": Yes, homicide rates are crime rates.
"gap": clearly there's a gap! (But not the one BV wished to show)
"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal It's not intended to be.

But who can say what (slightly) more subtle considerations need to be made, before a serious examination of BV's assertion can be undertaken?

 

[hitssquad]

Multiplicative comparisons

The "Homicide Offending Rate per 100,000 Population", according to official US Department of Justice figures, is more than seven times higher for 'whites' than 'blacks'

Whites: 32.6
Blacks: 4.6

32.6 is 6.09 times higher than 4.6.

 

[BlackVision]

Please try again; you provided several stats for the US, and 'incarceration rates' for England and Wales, for 1996 and 1997 (which, BTW, you claimed were 'UK figures'). Your racist assertion is about 'crime rates', which is not the same as 'incarceration rates'

Earlier BlackVision mentioned debating tactics, and characterised the scientific method as 'watermelon tactics'. Here is another example of failure to follow the scientific method: repeatedly stating an assertion instead of addressing questions about the assertion, and repeatedly failing to provide data to support the assetion.

I see that you clearly and conveniently skipped over my question. You can't tell me that I've provided no evidence. However we can all agree that YOU have provided absolutely nothing.

Please check the sources; the Jensen quote* refers to US 'blacks'

20% black, 60% black, 80% black. Regardless. Genetics plays a role. Race is genetically linked. You can try to deny it but it doesn't mean anyone will agree with you.

Here is an Australian Bureau of Statistics website, on the 2001 Census. Earlier BlackVision wrote: "the same racial gaps [in crime statistics] exists in every country. Canada, United Kingdom, Australia." BlackVision, please use this data to show, in terms of your 'white', 'asian', and 'black' definitions, the 'racial' makeup of the Australian population. Here's my assertion: there were fewer than 150,000 people in Australia in 2001 who claimed to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, out of a total population of over 18 million.

Small sample but sample nonetheless. Aborigines also have an extraordinarily high crime rate. East Asians in Australia have a lower crime rate than the White population. Although Southeast Asia does have a higher one although not as high as the Aborigine population.

I will start a new thread on whether there are 'human races' or not, and I will insist that the discussion be conducted following a clearly defined protocol, consistent with the scientific method.

You might want to go back to lesson #1 in evolution if you're actually going to argue against the genetic basis of human races.

*"M [intermixing index; FOOTNOTE 1] varies across different regions of the United States, being as low as 4 percent to 10 percent in some southeastern States and spreading out in a fan-shaped gradient toward the north and the west to reach over 40 percent in some northeastern and northwestern states"

I already addressed this above. The mixing becomes a moot point. If someone is 50/50 of one race, he/she would get a great deal of mix of the genetic pool of both races. Genetic testing will also confirm this.

 

[BlackVision]

Now we are getting close to BlackVision's apparent ignorance (or racism). As was discussed extensively here in Social Sciences earlier, not even the authors of "The Bell Curve" - not even Jensen - claim that their research and conclusions have validity outside the US. Those racists - such as Lynn and Rushton - who do claim some global validity for their racist views base their conclusions on very sloppy science, not to mention claims not even substantiated by their own data (also discussed here earlier)

Ah yes the racist tactic again. Fail to provide any contrary evidence, use "racist" as a last resort. The work of Murray, Herrnstein, Jensen, Lynn, and Rushton does have a high level of support in the academic circles. These are all respectable academics of their fields. Coming from the most prestigious universities.

Let's have a contest, how many more times will Nereid say the word "racist" in this thread.

BlackVision, your assertion is a racist one (it claims some global validity for a crime-'race' relationship). A reasonable counter to such a claim is that crime rates are more closely related to socio-economic class. In one European country (Norway), a PF member asserts that this socio-economic dimension accounts for much of the variation in crime rates between ethnic groups. You assert that 'race' has a correlation with 'crime rate' in the US, independent of SES (at least for 'blacks'). On the surface, your racist assertion is inconsistent with these two data points (if indeed that's what they are).

There is a global crime-race relationship. If you want to be completely oblivious to it that's your problem. The data however, as some have stated, is not in question. The crime gap between races is very consistent from country to country from region to region. You can explain WHY that is but you STILL haven't been able to get on first base.

And the relation of SES to crime I already addressed. And did you bother reading the article that is the 2nd post of this thread. Let me quote it:

"Experts love to blame crime on poverty. That's nonsense! From 1900 to 1929, the nation's murder rate rose from 1.2 per 1 00,000 of the population to 8.4. However, during parts of the 1930s, when the unemployment rate stood at 37 percent, the murder rate had fallen to 6.3 per 1 00,000 and to 4.7 per 100,000 by 1960. After 1960, violent crime rates shot up. By 1993, the murder rate was 9.5 per 100,000, falling to 8.2 in 1995. Rather than poverty causing crime, one might more easily make the case that crime causes poverty."---Walter E. Williams

This is said by a BLACK professor. Your hypothesis is just getting blown out of the water.

 

[BlackVision]

Now that I have your undivided attention ... you'll recall that Nereid kept insisting that BlackVision define the key terms he used in his assertion, clearly and unambiguously? And that BV got really annoyed with this, calling it 'watermelon tactics', and denying it played any role in science?

You do know that repetition gets you nowhere right? I made it VERY distinctively clear between the difference of the scientific method and what YOU have been doing. And I've repeatedly asked you to provide ANY contrary data whatsoever and you have yet to do so. It seems you're getting annoyed.

"consistent": two sets of data are the minimum needed to establish consistency, so here is a second set: White 31.6, Black 4.9.

To quote BV, "Wtf?"

The "White" rates are 18-24 White male, 1991 (1995); the "Black" 25+ (14-17) Black female, 2000.

Of course no one would consider this a serious rebuttal It's not intended to be.

Yes gender is also a factor. Men and women do indeed have genetical differences. Are you going to argue this as well? Men have a far higher testostereone level which contributes to aggressive behavior. Aggressive behavior will often times turn criminal. Certain races have been shown to have a higher mean testosterone level than others.

 

[Moonbear]

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC [/color]

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

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

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



Oklahoma City [/color]

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/


So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

These stats don't take into account cost of living. In the midwest, you can live fairly comfortably on $35K, even afford to buy a small house. In DC, to live at the same comfort level, you'd need to be earning about $80-$100K. Of course, interesting you should choose Oklahoma City as your example, since in recent years, the bombing of the Federal Building there is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.

 

[Loren Booda]

It must now be obvious that the reduction and dehumanization of a people is very effective with the authority of numbers, even without addressing a single individual.

Here is a link that lists "20TH CENTURY DEMOCIDE," genocide by the 20 worst offending governments last century. Of the regimes listed, not one is a sub-Saharan state.

The statistics may vary source-to-source, but my position remains: the vast majority of mass murder (per capita) in the 20th century has been perpetrated by "non-black" peoples. As sub-Saharan states acquired more lethal weapons from whites, their incidence of mass killings increased toward the end of the 20th century.

A side note: Serial killers, those who kill sporadically more than three persons, are almost invariably white.

 

[Moonbear]

"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."---Moonbear

And I doubt even Evo will argue that the statistics given on the first page is inaccurate. But she, like Moonbear, will give their interpretations to why the gap exists. YOU are the only one trying to argue against it. Do you have any clue how inconceivable you sound? Yes yes cause the US Department of Justice, the FBI, they're just manipulating and giving fake statistics to spread their propaganda against blacks. This conversation cannot go any further without you at least acknowledging there is a gap. It shows your ignorance/stubbornness on the subject.

For clarity, when I referred to the data, I was referring only to the statistics for US murder rates, not worldwide differences. Nereid's questions are all valid questions and I'm still waiting for the answers too, I'm just getting bored of seeing them repeated over and over without any further answers, so don't see the point of asking them too.

I think the point Nereid is trying to make regarding the racial classifications is that in the US, it wasn't too far back in history that 1/8 black was defined as white, any higher percentage and they were defined as black. So, someone who is 50% black and 50% white would still wind up in the black category rather than half of those people being randomly assigned to the black group and the other half to the white group. And what about hispanics? Hispanic is a general term for someone of South American heritage who can be of Caucasian, African, or Native American ancestry (or a mix of any combination of those).

Then, to support your point about crime rates being similarly racially split in around the world, you compare murder rates in the US to overall crime rates in the UK...apples and oranges. I also have not seen stats presented on the distribution of races in the UK. Further, if you want to show that there is a racial factor, then show the stats for some African nations...what percentages of crimes are committed by blacks vs whites in countries that have a predominantly black population?

And I see you're back to claiming testosterone levels differ between the races, despite my offering several sources of evidence this is not the case.

As for the issue of differences between the genders, since the discussion has led primarily down the race/ethnicity/ancestry question, it seems best to focus on that one issue first, then address the second issue of gender differences.

If you want us to accept your hypothesis, then you need to first demonstrate, with valid studies, that ALL of the other alternative hypotheses can be disproven. Basically, Nereid's questions are all directing you toward those alternative hypotheses, so by dismissing her questions, you are choosing to not disprove the alternatives, thus weakening your own argument.

 

[hitssquad]

Racial categorizations of individuals vs. groups

the bombing of the Federal Building ... is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.

What makes you think Timothy McVeigh was a "white" person?

 

[BlackVision]

For clarity, when I referred to the data, I was referring only to the statistics for US murder rates, not worldwide differences.

Yeah I know. But Nereid seems to challenge even that.

As for worldwide, there are tons of articles of the problem of high crime rates involving incoming immigrants in Europe. A simple google search should provide many.

I don't think anyone would be naive to state that the high crimes of whites and blacks are equal in ANY country. Whether the US, whether South Africa, whether United Kingdom, etc.

Nereid's questions are all valid questions

Not true. She is not interested in any answers, she simply wants to ask one question after another after. It's called the "questions" defense. When you have nothing to present, this is a common tactic used. Go back and read this thread from page 1. Read all her threads. Tell me you don't notice a trend.

I even gave her the option to actually have a debate. That we would each be allowed to ask one question at a time. Of course she refused. Most likely cause she isn't interested in having a debate but simply wants to just mouth off.

I think the point Nereid is trying to make regarding the racial classifications is that in the US, it wasn't too far back in history that 1/8 black was defined as white, any higher percentage and they were defined as black. So, someone who is 50% black and 50% white would still wind up in the black category rather than half of those people being randomly assigned to the black group and the other half to the white group. And what about hispanics? Hispanic is a general term for someone of South American heritage who can be of Caucasian, African, or Native American ancestry (or a mix of any combination of those).

NOTHING here is related to the fact that there are crime gaps between races. How a mixed race person gets classified is absolutely futile and completely irrelevant. Unless you actually want to argue that there is a more proper way of classification that would eliminate the gap altogether. But I doubt you're trying to state that. This is just an example of moving away from the core topic simply cause it is not an easy topic to discuss for many people.

Then, to support your point about crime rates being similarly racially split in around the world, you compare murder rates in the US to overall crime rates in the UK...apples and oranges. I also have not seen stats presented on the distribution of races in the UK. Further, if you want to show that there is a racial factor, then show the stats for some African nations...what percentages of crimes are committed by blacks vs whites in countries that have a predominantly black population?

South Africa. There is a good example of a predominately black country of an enormous white-black crime gap. Study the black rule handover of 1993 of South Africa.

And I see you're back to claiming testosterone levels differ between the races, despite my offering several sources of evidence this is not the case.

J Rushton has quite a comprehensive study on this. But I'm assuming you're going to ignore it. And even with your study, it STILL showed an increase of testosterone of blacks. And who are you to decide that it's too small of a number to be noticeable. Is the 0.6% DNA difference between humans and chimps too small to be noticeable?

In your study, what is the testosterone level between males and females?

As for the issue of differences between the genders, since the discussion has led primarily down the race/ethnicity/ancestry question, it seems best to focus on that one issue first, then address the second issue of gender differences.

Why? Afterall there was as much gender data as there was race data in my 1st post. And the reason why men have a higher homicide rate and why blacks do would probably be at least partly the same reason. The reason of course being testosterone level. Also does your study happen to mention the testosterone level of asians?

If you want us to accept your hypothesis, then you need to first demonstrate, with valid studies, that ALL of the other alternative hypotheses can be disproven. Basically, Nereid's questions are all directing you toward those alternative hypotheses, so by dismissing her questions, you are choosing to not disprove the alternatives, thus weakening your own argument.

I GAVE Nereid the opportunity to have a debate. A debate is not where she asks a question and I have to answer. And then she asks 3 more questions and then I have to answer. And she asks 5 more questions and I have to answer. Also the vast majority of Nereid's questions were completely irrelevant. If she wants to attack the source then fine. But she should at least present some evidence to support it. Has she done this? No. I would say that makes her case very weak. Not to mention her lack of desire to have a proper debate.

 

[BlackVision]

the bombing of the Federal Building ... is one of the bigger stories of mass murder by a white person.

What makes you think he was white? Was there genetic testing after he got arrested to see how much Caucasian blood he had? Did they ask Timothy McVeigh what race he was when he got arrested?

 

[russ_watters]

What makes you think he was white? Was there genetic testing after he got arrested to see how much Caucasian blood he had? Did they ask Timothy McVeigh what race he was when he got arrested?

I haven't dropped in on this thread in a while, and this is the only one I've read today, but its too funny to pass up: how many black Irismen do you know? Don't be absurd, it really doesn't help your argument.

 

[Evo]

Racial data? I had as much data on gender as on race. Did you miss these?

Homicide Rate by Gender:

Males. Age 14-17:
Males. Age 18-24:
Males. Age 25+:

Females. Age 14-17:
Females. Age 18-24:
Females. Age 25+:

Wrong. This is the only part of your post that did not include race.

Homicide Rate by Gender:

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

The gender information you show is not as it appears in your post. All other age and gender data you provided was listed by race.

Do you think I can't go back and look at your post?

The Midwest is quite poor but have low crime rates. Here's Washington DC as compared to Oklahoma City:

Washington DC [/color]

Population: 572,059

Ethnic Races:
White: 27.8%
Black: 60%
Hispanic: 7.9%
Asian: 2.7%

Median Household Income: $40,127
Households Under $20,000 income: 26%

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

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

Oklahoma City [/color]

Population: 506,132

Ethnic Races:
White: 64.7%
Black 15.2%
Hispanic 10.1%
Asian 3.4%

Median household income: $34,947
Households Under $20,000 income: 27%

Homicide Rate:[/color] 7.41 per 100,000

Source: http://statestats.com/


So why does Oklahoma City, a city with more poverty, have substantially lower homicide rate than DC?

You're forgetting that Washington DC actually has areas of more severe inner city poverty than Oklahoma City. Cost of living is very high in DC. People earning $20k annually in DC are much poorer than a person earning $20k annually in Oklahoma City.

Cost of living is lower in Oklahoma City, people with lower incomes can live more comfortably.

 

[Evo]

As for worldwide, there are tons of articles of the problem of high crime rates involving incoming immigrants in Europe. A simple google search should provide many.

Here at PF if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to provide the data and list the source. This keeps information in the threads accurate. If people are allowed to just throw out vague or unsubstantiated information, what is the point of discussing it? PF has higher standards than other forums.

I GAVE Nereid the opportunity to have a debate. A debate is not where she asks a question and I have to answer. And then she asks 3 more questions and then I have to answer. And she asks 5 more questions and I have to answer.

Nereid uses a scientific approach to evaluate information. It is a very good way to clarify issues. This is Nereid's normal style, which you will notice if you read any of her posts in other forums here, she's not after you. I've never seen anyone complain about her style, quite the opposite, she is very highly regarded because of how she looks at data.

 

[Moonbear]

What makes you think he was white? Was there genetic testing after he got arrested to see how much Caucasian blood he had? Did they ask Timothy McVeigh what race he was when he got arrested?

So, you concede that when someone is arrested, they are not tested to determine accurately their ethnicity/race, and you're asserting that self-report of this information is not sufficient. Therefore, all the qualitative divisions of the population used in your previously reported statistics have these same flaws in their collection, and can now be considered invalid.

 

[BlackVision]

I haven't dropped in on this thread in a while, and this is the only one I've read today, but its too funny to pass up: how many black Irismen do you know? Don't be absurd, it really doesn't help your argument.

Apparently you missed the joke. If you had been keeping up with this thread, you would of gotten it. It was a Nereid mimic.

 

[BlackVision]

Wrong. This is the only part of your post that did not include race.

ONLY part? Ok you need to go back to the first post and read again.

The gender information you show is not as it appears in your post. All other age and gender data you provided was listed by race.

It was a COMBINATION of race and gender. But it's not surprising that you would completely focus on the race part and completely dismiss the gender issue.

Do you think I can't go back and look at your post?

That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you to do.

You're forgetting that Washington DC actually has areas of more severe inner city poverty than Oklahoma City. Cost of living is very high in DC. People earning $20k annually in DC are much poorer than a person earning $20k annually in Oklahoma City.

Cost of living is heavily dependent on how much the average person makes in that area. Since the average person in DC makes more money than Oklahoma City, of course the cost of living will be higher. You know what the metropolitian with the highest cost of living in America is? San Francisco. Do you see San Francisco with an absurdly high crime rate?

 

[BlackVision]

Here at PF if you make a claim, it is your responsibility to provide the data and list the source. This keeps information in the threads accurate. If people are allowed to just throw out vague or unsubstantiated information, what is the point of discussing it? PF has higher standards than other forums.

Right and I have provided NO data whatsoever yes? And you're right, people shouldn't be just allowed to throw out vague and unsubstantiated information. Which would mean it completely throws out any argument made by Nereid whatsoever since she has provided absolutely nothing. NOTHING.

Nereid uses a scientific approach to evaluate information. It is a very good way to clarify issues. This is Nereid's normal style, which you will notice if you read any of her posts in other forums here, she's not after you. I've never seen anyone complain about her style, quite the opposite, she is very highly regarded because of how she looks at data.

I already broke down Nereid quite a bit. You will also notice I mimicked Nereid with the Timothy McVeigh post, if you can't clearly see the difference between a proper scientific approach and what Nereid did, and what I did with the Timothy McVeigh post, you need to reevaluate your understanding of the scientific method.

 

[BlackVision]

So, you concede that when someone is arrested, they are not tested to determine accurately their ethnicity/race, and you're asserting that self-report of this information is not sufficient. Therefore, all the qualitative divisions of the population used in your previously reported statistics have these same flaws in their collection, and can now be considered invalid.

That's what you got out of that? I thought I made it VERY obvious what it was. It was simply the Nereid approach of "debating"

And since you didn't respond to me the 1st time, I will ask once again, do you think there is some sort of racial classification, that is proper, that is decent, that is fair, that would have even the remote of chance of balancing out the race-crime gap. If you do I'll all ears to hear.

 

[Moonbear]

As for worldwide, there are tons of articles of the problem of high crime rates involving incoming immigrants in Europe. A simple google search should provide many.

Then please do the google search and report back. That's the evidence we're asking you to provide.

I don't think anyone would be naive to state that the high crimes of whites and blacks are equal in ANY country. Whether the US, whether South Africa, whether United Kingdom, etc.

Equal, no, but statistically different in the same direction for every country of the world, we're still waiting for you to back up your claim on that

Not true. She is not interested in any answers, she simply wants to ask one question after another after. It's called the "questions" defense. When you have nothing to present, this is a common tactic used. Go back and read this thread from page 1. Read all her threads. Tell me you don't notice a trend.

The trend I notice is she asks you to support your claims, she inquires about the details of how your statistics were generated, which is a valid question in a scientific discussion (you cannot evaluate results and conclusions if you do not know how the data were obtained).

NOTHING here is related to the fact that there are crime gaps between races. How a mixed race person gets classified is absolutely futile and completely irrelevant. Unless you actually want to argue that there is a more proper way of classification that would eliminate the gap altogether. But I doubt you're trying to state that. This is just an example of moving away from the core topic simply cause it is not an easy topic to discuss for many people.

What we are saying is that, yes, it's possible that accounting for mixed races differently would change the outcome of the statistics. If everyone who was a mix of white and black who commits a crime is lumped into the "black" category, it artificially inflates that category.

South Africa. There is a good example of a predominately black country of an enormous white-black crime gap. Study the black rule handover of 1993 of South Africa.

Do you have any examples of countries that were not under British rule/oppression in the past few hundred years? Perhaps all the differences are in the way former British colonies, or Britain herself, treated blacks.

To be continued...

 

[Moonbear]

J Rushton has quite a comprehensive study on this. But I'm assuming you're going to ignore it. And even with your study, it STILL showed an increase of testosterone of blacks. And who are you to decide that it's too small of a number to be noticeable.

I've cited you multiple studies that refute your claim. The most recent and most preponderant evidence shows there are no differences in testosterone between whites and blacks. And, that study showed only a tiny increase in ONE of 10 years of testing. Did you look at the data? And I didn't say too small of a number to be noticeable, I said too small to be biologically meaningful. And who I am is a reproductive neuroendocrinologist. I happen to have a good deal of expertise on functions of steroid hormones.

I am not arguing that androgens can affect aggression, just that the very small difference in the two populations in the study I cited was not sufficient to account for population differences in aggression. Here's a reference for a study that shows an initial episode of aggression in mice will LEAD TO an increase in testosterone for the "winner", and that increase will increase the likelihood of further aggression, but is not the initial cause for aggression.

Horm Behav. 2004 Feb;45(2):115-21.
**
Opposing hormonal mechanisms of aggression revealed through short-lived testosterone manipulations and multiple winning experiences.
Trainor BC, Bird IM, Marler CA.
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA. btrainor@cgr.harvard.edu
Territorial aggression is influenced by many social and environmental factors. Since aggression is a costly behavior, individuals should account for multiple factors such as population density or reproductive status before engaging in aggression. Previous work has shown that male California mice (Peromyscus californicus) respond to winning aggressive encounters by initiating aggression more quickly in future encounters, and we investigated the physiological basis for this effect. We found that injections that produced a transient increase in testosterone (T) following an aggressive encounter caused males to behave more aggressively in an encounter the following day. Experience alone was not enough to change aggression, as males treated with saline injections showed no change in aggression. The effect of T injections on aggression was androgen-based, as the inhibition of aromatase did not block the T injections from increasing aggression. Aromatase inhibition did, however, increase aggression in the initial aggression tests (before application of T or saline injections), and aromatase activity in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) was negatively correlated with aggression. A previous study suggested that aromatase activity in the BNST decreases after males become fathers. Thus, distinct neuroendocrine mechanisms allow male California mice to adjust aggressive behavior in response to changes in social and reproductive status.


Social factors are also involved. There is actually more evidence that serotonin mediates aggression rather than a direct action of androgens. Stress hormone levels (cortisol) also affect aggression, especially in combination with androgens. Someone living in a higher stress environment, then, becomes more sensitive to the SAME levels of testosterone.

Even more to come...

 

[Moonbear]

In your study, what is the testosterone level between males and females?

That study did not refer to females. Obviously you didn't read it. But, since you ask, and since you earlier questioned the link between testosterone and obesity, here is another reference, that addresses both of those questions.

Horm Metab Res. 2003 Jun;35(6):362-6.
Sex difference in the effect of obesity on 24-hour mean serum gonadotropin levels.
Strain GW, Zumoff B, Miller LK, Rosner W.

To determine the effect of obesity on serum gonadotropin levels and any possible sex difference in the effect, we measured the 24-hour mean serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations in 62 healthy men with Body Mass Index (BMI) ranging from 20 - 94 and 61 healthy, regularly cycling women with BMIs ranging from 19 - 76. We also measured free testosterone (T) and estradiol (E2) in these subjects. There was a significant negative correlation between serum FSH and BMI in men: FSH(IU/L) = 49.9 x BMI -0.567; r = - 0.376, p = 0.0026; but a significant positive correlation between serum FSH and BMI in women: FSH(IU/L) =7.66 +/- 0.071 x BMI; r = 0.302, p = 0.018. Serum LH was weight-invariant in both sexes. In men, free T was negatively correlated with BMI: Free T (nmol/L) = 0.74 - 0.0068 x BMI; r = 0.585, p = 0.0381; and free E2 was positively correlated with BMI: Free E2 (pmol/L) = - 1.03 +/- 0.057 x BMI; r = 0.50, p = 0.0014. In obese women as a group, free T was higher than in lean women (33 +/- 6.8 S.E.M. vs. 17.4 +/- 2.0 pmol/L; p < 0.0001), and free E2 was also higher than in lean women: (6.90 +/- 0.80 vs. 4.84 +/- 0.55 pmol/L; p = 0.046). Of the many cases of hypothalamic-pituitary hormonal dysregulation that have been reported in obesity, none has been studied for sex differences. Our results mandate that possible sex differences be investigated in all cases of dysregulation.

And the reason why men have a higher homicide rate and why blacks do would probably be at least partly the same reason. The reason of course being testosterone level. Also does your study happen to mention the testosterone level of asians?

Again, it becomes obvious you are refuting a study you did not read. And you complain of Nereid's questions! I could use your tactic and tell you to do a literature search as the information must be readily available. But, here are more references for your edification.
First, a review article:
Asian J Androl. 2000 Mar;2(1):13-20.
Differences in reproductive endocrinology between Asian men and Caucasian men--a literature review.
van Houten ME, Gooren LJ.

"A later study[26], however, demonstrated that the decreased levels of 5?Á-reduced androgen metabolites in Asian men was not explained by a genetically determined low 5?Á-reductase activity. Instead, reduced levels of the androgenic ketosteroid precursors of these plasma metabolites are a more likely reason. They found a significant reduction in the production of testosterone and plasma testosterone in Chinese residents compared to Chinese migrants in Pennsylvania. No difference was found between Chinese residents and Caucasians living in Pennsylvania. No information was provided in the study regarding the amount of years for which the Chinese migrants had already resided in Pennsylvania. The study of Lookingbill DP et al, 1991[18] showed no obvious difference in serum total and free testosterone levels between Asian and Caucasian men. "

And so you know what references they are citing here, I will include those also (of course you could look them up yourself when you read the article).

[18] Lookingbill DP, Demers LM, Wang C, Leung A, Rittmaster RS, Santen RJ.Clinical and biochemical parameters of androgen action in normal healthy Caucasian versus Chinese subjects.*J Clinical Endocrinol Metab 1991; 72: 1242-8.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Jun;72(6):1242-8. Related Articles, Links

Stimulation of androgen-sensitive hair follicles is mediated by dihydrotestosterone (DHT), which is formed in these tissues by 5 alpha-reduction of testosterone. A possible mechanism for increased body hair in some human populations might, therefore, be an increase in 5 alpha-reductase activity, resulting in elevated tissue levels of DHT. If present, this finding could have other important clinical implications, since the 5 alpha-reductase enzyme is pivotal in the pathophysiology of prostatic disease. To explore differences in clinical and biochemical parameters of androgen action, we conducted a study of 184 caucasian and Chinese subjects in whom we evaluated chest hair density and serum levels of androgen precursors and 5 alpha-reduced androgen metabolites. Differences in chest hair density were most notable in the men, in whom comparative mean chest hair scores (using a scale of 0-4) were 3.0 vs. 0.8 (P less than 0.0001), caucasian vs. Chinese. Levels of 5 alpha-reduced androgen products were also strikingly higher in the caucasian vs. Chinese subjects. Serum 3 alpha-androstanediol glucuronide levels (nanomoles per L) were 34.7 +/- 2.4 vs. 19.7 +/- 0.9 (P less than 0.001) for the men and 21.5 +/- 3.2 vs. 9.4 +/- 0.6 (P less than 0.001) for the women, and serum levels of androsterone glucuronide (nanomoles per L) were 179 +/- 26 vs. 107 +/- 7 (P less than 0.01) for the caucasian vs. Chinese men and 173 +/- 23 vs. 81 +/- 9 (P less than 0.001) for the women. Serum levels of total and bioavailable testosterone did not differ between the racial groups, but serum levels of the precursor androgens, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and androstenedione, were significantly higher in the caucasian vs. Chinese men, but not in the women. We conclude that increased serum levels of 5 alpha-reduced androgen metabolites in caucasians vs. Chinese subjects provide circumstantial evidence for a racial difference in 5 alpha-reductase activity and suggest a mechanism for the increased body hair observed in the caucasian men. Increased levels of precursor androgens may also play a role.

[26] Santner SJ, Albertson B, Zhang G, Zhang GH, Santulli M, Wang C, et al. Comparative rates of androgen production and metabolism in Caucasian men and Chinese subjects.*J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998; 83: 2104-9.

Clinically apparent prostate cancer occurs more commonly among Caucasians living in Western countries than in Chinese in the Far East. Prior studies demonstrated diminished facial and body hair and lower levels of plasma 3 alpha-androstanediol glucuronide and androsterone glucuronide in Chinese than in Caucasian men. Based upon these findings, investigators postulated that Chinese men could have diminished 5 alpha-reductase activity with a resultant decrease in prostate tissue dihydrotestosterone levels and clinically apparent prostate cancer. An alternative hypothesis suggests that decreased 3 alpha-androstanediol glucuronide and androsterone glucuronide levels might reflect reduced production of androgenic ketosteroid precursors as a result of genetic or environmental factors. The present study examined 5 alpha-reductase activity, androgenic ketosteroid precursors, and the influence of genetic and environmental/dietary factors in groups of Chinese and Caucasian men. We found no significant differences in the ratios of 5 beta-:5 alpha-reduced urinary steroids (a marker of 5 alpha-reductase activity) between Chinese subjects living in Beijing, China, and Caucasians living in Pennsylvania. To enhance the sensitivity of detection, we used an isotopic kinetic method to directly measure 5 alpha-reductase activity and found no difference in testosterone to dihydrotestosterone conversion ratios between groups. Then, addressing the alternative hypothesis, we found that the Caucasian subjects excreted significantly higher levels of individual and total androgenic ketosteroids than did their Chinese counterparts. To distinguish genetic from environmental/dietary factors as a cause of these differences, we compared Chinese men living in Pennsylvania and a similar group living in Beijing, China. We detected a reduction in testosterone production rates and total plasma testosterone and sex hormone-binding levels, but not in testosterone MCRs in Beijing Chinese as a opposed to those living in Pennsylvania. Comparing Pennsylvania Chinese with their Caucasian counterparts, we detected no significant differences in total testosterone, free and weakly bound testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin levels, and testosterone production rates. Taken together, these studies suggest that environmental/dietary, but not genetic, factors influence androgen production and explain the differences between Caucasian and Chinese men.

Now, yet another study finds something different. The more I delve into this for you, the more I see a major problem arising...lack of repeatability. In other words, the connection is not reliable between ethnic groups and testosterone concentrations. Here, this one does show ethnic differences in serum total and free testosterone.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1995 Oct-Nov;4(7):735-41.
Serum androgens and sex hormone-binding globulins in relation to lifestyle factors in older African-American, white, and Asian men in the United States and Canada.
Wu AH, Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, John EM, Gallagher RP, West DW, Hankin J, Teh CZ, Dreon DM, Paffenbarger RS Jr.
"After adjustment for age and Quetelet's index, the levels of total and bioavailable testosterone were highest in Asian-Americans, intermediate in African-Americans, and lowest in whites."

If your prediction that higher levels of testosterone in a population result in increased crime/murder rates in a population, then Asian-Americans should have the highest crime/murder rate. They don't, therefore your hypothesis that it is all about testosterone must be rejected.

 

[Moonbear]

That's what you got out of that? I thought I made it VERY obvious what it was. It was simply the Nereid approach of "debating"

No, you did not make that at all obvious. This is why we are asking you so many questions. Whatever point you are trying to make is certainly not coming through clearly. When we ask questions, it is to clarify points. If you ask a question, I assume the same thing, that you are trying to clarify a point. I saw nothing wrong with you asking, just that it opposed your argument better than supporting it.

And since you didn't respond to me the 1st time, I will ask once again, do you think there is some sort of racial classification, that is proper, that is decent, that is fair, that would have even the remote of chance of balancing out the race-crime gap. If you do I'll all ears to hear.

I cannot provide you with such a classification. I know of no one who has attempted to collect data in such a way, so don't know if it is possible. What happened to your argument that a "proper" debate included addressing only one point at a time? I miss one question out of a myriad number of points I was busy responding to, and you take me to task on it. However, the point is that there are more questions than answers provided by those statistics. The point in asking the questions is not that we actually expect you to have an answer, but that we don't think the answers currently exist. This needs to be pointed out, because any or all of these other factors could potentially explain all the apparent racial differences provided by those statistics. If you have answers to those questions, it would help to support your side of the debate. If you do not have answers, then there is insufficient information to come to your conclusions. When all the alternatives have been carefully eliminated, only then can anyone draw the conclusion it is ethnicity or genetics alone leading to the differences in crime rates.

 

[Moonbear]

Cost of living is heavily dependent on how much the average person makes in that area. Since the average person in DC makes more money than Oklahoma City, of course the cost of living will be higher. You know what the metropolitian with the highest cost of living in America is? San Francisco. Do you see San Francisco with an absurdly high crime rate?

There are two problems with this statement. First, cost of living is not dependent on how much people makes, typically, the cause-effect relationship is the opposite. As cost of living increases, due to the economics of supply and demand (population increases, demand increase, supply remains the same or decreases, prices increase), people begin to demand higher salaries to keep up with the cost of living. Those who do not have an option to negotiate salaries, such as the working poor who can't afford to move to find a job elsewhere (moving costs money), they have no leverage for negotiating better wages, so get trapped. Keep in mind that Washington, DC is not just a city stuck in the middle of nothing, it is a city surrounded by more highly populated areas. You can't just leave the city and find wide open spaces in the surrounding country when you need to escape the stresses of city living.

Second, you used Oklahoma City and Washington, DC as examples of two cities that had similar populations and average household incomes. Now you're arguing that income is higher in Washington, DC.

And there you go with more questions again. If you're going to introduce San Francisco into the argument, please include the same information about median wages, percent of the population living below IRS defined poverty level (that's what $20,000 is, poverty level on the federal level isn't adjusted for cost of living, so someone earning $40,000 in San Francisco is still probably barely subsisting, even though it's not defined as poverty level), population statistics, crime rates, racial distribution, etc.