3 ms·

"The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" Do you have any stats to back that up? Everything I find says the opposite. A Channel 4 News fact check s

"The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" Do you have any stats to back that up? Everything I find says the opposite. A Channel 4 News fact check says: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-amer... "Blacks were disproportionately likely to commit homicide and to be the victims. In 2008 the offending rate for blacks was seven times higher than for whites and the victimisation rate was six times higher." You can look at the stats yourself: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf See Page 3 Table 2. This is the "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey" where they ask victims of violent crime demographic information about the offenders. This avoids any question of bias from the arrest rates. Doing the math, black people offend at a rate 2.4x higher than whites. I disagree that whites are left off the hook: "The probability of arrest given the commission of a crime is higher for whites than it is for blacks for robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, whereas for rape the probability of arrest is approximately equal across offender race. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Arrests_and_sentencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_S... https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/81/4/1381/2234598?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/81/4/1381/22345... I tried to find data about offender rate for property crime, but every discussion said that since the victims don't encounter the offenders, there is no good way to estimate offender race. I'm not defending anything in American history. I just want to set the facts straight.

dnomad 8y ago
You clearly don't undererstand the "facts" you're presenting or, more likely, you are being intentionally dishonest.You're comparing data from [1] which is clearly labeled 2012-2015 and using that to argue about the drug policy for the last 50 years. If you really want to understand the "facts" about America's drug policy and the last 50 years of criminal policy there is a lot of academic literature written by some of the best historians out there. You can start with [2] for example. [1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680751.The_Marijuana_Conviction https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680751.The_Marijuana_Con...
- throwaway5839 8y ago
  I'm arguing about drug policy for the last 50 years? I disagreed with two false statements of fact: "The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" and "They also let white people off the hook". I said nothing about drug policy.
  - dnomad 8y ago
    > I disagreed with two false statements of fact: "The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" Believe it or not there is a great deal of research about just these questions. You might want to actually review such research before you confidently declare these facts as false. As it is, you've been presented with several highly acclaimed books and responded with cherry picked statistics and banal pedantry. It is reminiscent of climate change deniers who love to link to the Koch-funded study of AFP data while also carefully ignoring the last 50 years of other research. If you or anybody really want to actually understand the dark years of "Tough on Crime" that define America from 1960 to now there's a lot of serious texts out there that presents mountains of data on everything from targeting to minorities to redlining.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dnomad 8y ago
BTW, how pathetic is it to use a throwaway account to post this nonsense and then rush in to down-vote replies?
- rectang 8y ago
  Hi dnomad. Though I'm personally inclined to agree with the gist of your arguments, the way you're presenting them violates the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Even if you believe someone is arguing in bad faith, the exercise of responding to their best possible interpretation forces us to sharpen our own arguments and makes us stronger. It's a worthwhile constraint. I hope you'll find a way to accommodate yourself to the guidelines and stick around; if not, I hope you'll find a venue that suits you. Regardless: keep on keepin' on, amigo.
jayd16 8y ago
When you just look at race numbers it doesn't correct for things like economic or educational standing. Besides, isn't this begging the question? You can't really use statistics from the same institution you're trying to evaluate. The wikipedia link you posted gives a good summary of whats misleading about the snippet you chose immediately after that snippet.

dnomad 8y ago

You clearly don't undererstand the "facts" you're presenting or, more likely, you are being intentionally dishonest.You're comparing data from [1] which is clearly labeled 2012-2015 and using that to argue about the drug policy for the last 50 years. If you really want to understand the "facts" about America's drug policy and the last 50 years of criminal policy there is a lot of academic literature written by some of the best historians out there. You can start with [2] for example. [1] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215.pdf [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680751.The_Marijuana_Conviction https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680751.The_Marijuana_Con...

throwaway5839 8y ago
I'm arguing about drug policy for the last 50 years? I disagreed with two false statements of fact: "The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" and "They also let white people off the hook". I said nothing about drug policy.
- dnomad 8y ago
  > I disagreed with two false statements of fact: "The crime rates are nearly similar among all races" Believe it or not there is a great deal of research about just these questions. You might want to actually review such research before you confidently declare these facts as false. As it is, you've been presented with several highly acclaimed books and responded with cherry picked statistics and banal pedantry. It is reminiscent of climate change deniers who love to link to the Koch-funded study of AFP data while also carefully ignoring the last 50 years of other research. If you or anybody really want to actually understand the dark years of "Tough on Crime" that define America from 1960 to now there's a lot of serious texts out there that presents mountains of data on everything from targeting to minorities to redlining.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dnomad 8y ago

BTW, how pathetic is it to use a throwaway account to post this nonsense and then rush in to down-vote replies?

rectang 8y ago
Hi dnomad. Though I'm personally inclined to agree with the gist of your arguments, the way you're presenting them violates the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Even if you believe someone is arguing in bad faith, the exercise of responding to their best possible interpretation forces us to sharpen our own arguments and makes us stronger. It's a worthwhile constraint. I hope you'll find a way to accommodate yourself to the guidelines and stick around; if not, I hope you'll find a venue that suits you. Regardless: keep on keepin' on, amigo.

jayd16 8y ago

When you just look at race numbers it doesn't correct for things like economic or educational standing. Besides, isn't this begging the question? You can't really use statistics from the same institution you're trying to evaluate. The wikipedia link you posted gives a good summary of whats misleading about the snippet you chose immediately after that snippet.